JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. Both the appeals involving same question and arising out of the same judgment were heard together and are being disposed of together. 2. The facts of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The appellants are trustees of a religious trust. By an Indenture dated 21.4.51. Jiwanmal Bhutoria, Dhanraj Bhutoria and Bahadur Singh Bhutoria, all since deceased, and the petitioner no. 1 as also one Durgarmal Bhutoria settled and endowed properties situated in different districts of West Bengal and also at Rajasthan to secure the daily and periodical worship of the Deities Sree Sree Mahavira and Sree Sree Shiva and thereby made debuttar settlement of the said lands and created a trust in respect of the properties mentioned hereinbefore. The said trust admittedly owns 5.63 acres of land, being holding No. 1, Circle No. 2 Mouza Alamganj within the Municipalities of Burdwan. The respondents No. 2 herein, Food Corporation of India which has been constituted under the Food Corporation of India Act, entered into an agreement of tenancy with the appellant Trust by reason of a lease dated 12.11.76. The said lease was renewed once on 4.6.79. Clause 12 of the said renewed deed of lease reads thus :- “Xii. Lessors shall pay all existing and future Municipal or local taxes relating to the lands or the godowns. In cases where the godowns are regulated by the respective Rent Control Acts, the issue relating to eviction matter will not be subject matter of an arbitration.” The said holding was subject to assessment of consolidated rates in terms of the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. Disputes and differences having arisen between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 Municipality as regard, valuation a writ petition was filed in this Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Judge accepted one of the contentions of the appellant to the effect that they were entitled to 10% of rebate from Annual Valuation. Disputes and differences having arisen between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 Municipality as regard, valuation a writ petition was filed in this Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Judge accepted one of the contentions of the appellant to the effect that they were entitled to 10% of rebate from Annual Valuation. The learned Trial Judge keeping in view the provisions of section 132 of the said Act, inter alia, held:- “The one thing which has been lost sight of by the Municipality is that under section 128 of sub-section (1) of the B.M. Act, 1932, the annual valuation is to be reduced by 10% of the gross annual rental for the cost of repairs and for other expenses necessary to maintain the building in a state to command such gross rental. Such deduction was given in this case only for three quarters as per order dated 12th March, 1994, passed by the Municipal Authority. No explanation has been given from side of the Burdwan Municipality for non-compliance with the specific provision of section 128(1) of the B.M. Act regarding reduction of 10% of the gross annual rental from the annual valuation of a holding for the purpose of calculating the consolidated rates. In this view of the matter, this court holds that the writ petition succeeds in part only.” Having granted the said relief of 10% reduction from the gross annual rental on account of interest of repair etc. on the basis of which consolidated rates were to be calculated on the holding and consequently, of the surcharge, if the surcharge in particular case does not exceed the limits of 50% of the total consolidated rates as indicated under sub-section (1) of section 124 of the Bengal Municipal Act, the learned Trial Judge directed :- “The amount which would be adjusted to the credit of the writ petitioners of account of the lessor incidents of the consolidated rates etc. due to the 10% deduction of the annual valuation of the holding on the basis of the gross annual rental will be adjusted against the bills to be presented by the Municipality on account of rates and taxes starting from the second quarter of the year of 1986-87. due to the 10% deduction of the annual valuation of the holding on the basis of the gross annual rental will be adjusted against the bills to be presented by the Municipality on account of rates and taxes starting from the second quarter of the year of 1986-87. The impugned noticed of the demand are reduced to the extent as indicated above and the Municipality is entitled to recover the amount as indicated above, and not to the extent as claimed by them. The decision of the Review Committee dated 12th March, 1994, is also modified to the extent as indicated above. All other relief prayed for are refused.” 3. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has principally raised two questions in support of this appeal. The learned Counsel firstly submitted that in terms of the provisions of section 132 of the said Act, the respondent No. 2 was to pay 50% of the rates and taxes apart from surcharge which was to be payable by the occupier alone. The learned Counsel further submits that there is absolutely no reason as to why keeping in view various amenities provided to the tenant, extra 74% deduction should not have been granted by the municipality. According to the learned counsel, the leaned Trial Judge erred in not taking that aspect of the matter into consideration. It was further submitted that the assessment under this Act made as against the owner must be a correct assessment only whereupon bills served upon the assessee become legally payable. In view of the fact, Mr. Roy would urge, that 10% deduction even had not been granted, it cannot be said that the correct bills were served upon the petitioner and in that view of the matter, question of payment of any interest could not arise. The learned counsel further submits that in that view of the matter, the impugned order of assessment should be directed to be set aside. 4. Keeping in view the fact that there had been certain disputes as regards accounting, parties met both at the Bar Library Club as also in the office of the Chairmen, Burdwan Municipality. A statement of the municipal taxes in respect of the holding in question had been places before us. None of the parties deny or dispute the said statement. Keeping in view the fact that there had been certain disputes as regards accounting, parties met both at the Bar Library Club as also in the office of the Chairmen, Burdwan Municipality. A statement of the municipal taxes in respect of the holding in question had been places before us. None of the parties deny or dispute the said statement. It appears from the said statement that following is due : “Tax from 2nd Qrts. to 4th Qrts. 1979-80 - Rs. 47,767.14 Tax from 1st Qrts. to 4th Qrts. 1980-81 - Rs. 63,689.52 Tax from 1st Qrts. 1981-82 to 4th Qrts. 1982-83 - Rs. 1,48,608.88 Tax from 1st Qrts. to 3rd Qrts. 1983-84 - Rs. 84,564.00 Tax from 4th Qrts. 83-84 to 4th Qrts. 1997-98 - Rs. 20,20,392.93 _____________ Rs. 23,65,022.47 Add Interest for delayed payment as per provision of B.M. Act @ Rs. 6.25% P.A. upto 31st March, 1983 and then 10% P.A. from 1st April, 1983 onwards + Rs. 1,35,077.53 _____________ Rs. 25,00,100.00 Less amount paid against the dues on different dates from 12.5.84 to September, 1997 - Rs. 34,63,611.78 Excess - Rs. 9,63,511.78 5. The only questions which, therefore, remain for consideration are (1) whether in view of the order passed by this Court, the amount payable by the Food Corporation of India could be held to be payable on its own account or on account of the appellant. (2) whether if the aforementioned question is answered in favour of the appellant, the Food Corporation of India would be also liable to pay interest and deposit the excess amount on their own share. 6. The provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 clearly provide imposition of tax. Section 124 of the said Act provides as to how and in what manner consolidated rate and tax upon annual valuation of holding be determined. Section 128 of the said Act provides that annual valuation of a holding shall be deemed to be gross annual rental including service charges on which holding is reasonably expected to let. Sections 132 and 132A of the said Act which are material for the purpose of these appeals read thus:- “132. Except as otherwise provided by this Act, one-half of any rate which is assessed on the annual value of holding shall be payable by the owner of the holding and the other half by the occupier thereof.” “132A. Sections 132 and 132A of the said Act which are material for the purpose of these appeals read thus:- “132. Except as otherwise provided by this Act, one-half of any rate which is assessed on the annual value of holding shall be payable by the owner of the holding and the other half by the occupier thereof.” “132A. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 132 or in any other provisions of this Act, a surcharge imposed on any holding under sub-section (2) of section 124 shall be payable by the owner or the occupier, as the case may be, who uses such holding for commercial, industrial or other non-residential purpose.” Section 155 of the said Act provides for the bill and notice of demand upon assessees. The said provisions read thus:- "Section 155 (1)-As soon as may be after any sum has become due on account of any tax, toll, fee or rate, the Commissioners shall cause to be presented to the person liable a bill for the sum due. (2) Every such bill shall contain a statement of the period and of the tax, toll, fee or rate for which the charge is made. (3) The Commissioners at a meeting may by a resolution direct that a rebate of five per cent of the amount of any bill shall be allowed if payment of the amount for which the bill has been presented under sub-section (i) is made into the municipal office within thirty days from the date of such presentation and thereupon rebate shall be allowed accordingly : Provided that the Commissioners at a meeting may withdraw the rebate allowed under this sub-section. Explanation : A bill shall be deemed to be presented under this section if it is sent by post under certificate of posting to the person liable, and in such case, the date borne on such certificate of posting shall be deemed to be the date of presentation of the bill to the person liable. (4) If the said amount is not paid within thirty days from the date of presentation of the bill, a notice of demand in the prescribed form shall be served on the person liable. (4) If the said amount is not paid within thirty days from the date of presentation of the bill, a notice of demand in the prescribed form shall be served on the person liable. Such notice shall be signed by the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or any officer authorised by the Commissioners in that behalf and shall be served by a person authorised to receive payment for by registered post : Provided that no charge shall be made in respect of the service of such notice. (5) On the amount of a bill remaining unpaid after its presentation, interest shall be payable at the rate of (ten per cent., per annum) on the said amount from the day next after the expiry of thirty days from the commencement of the quarter following that in which the bill is presented. Explanation : In calculating the interest payable under this sub-section, a fraction of a rupee in the amount of the bill on which interest is to be calculated shall- (a) where it is less than (fifty paise) be left out of account, and (b) where it is not less than (fifty paise) be taken as one rupee." Section 165 provides for recovery from occupier of tax due from non-resident owner and deduction from rent. 7. It appears admitted that Food Corporation of India had earlier paid a sum of Rs. one lac fifty thousand. By an order dated 4.10.98 a Division Bench of this Court directed- “Having heard the learned counsel-for the parties we clarify the order dated 30.8.96 to the extent that the petitioners are to pay 50% of the amount which has been shown in the chart supplied by the Municipality itself, that is, a sum of Rs. 50,88,017.94 upto 4th quarter 1995-96 and the-Interest calculated thereupon, that is, Rs. 13,70,674.26. Out of the aforementioned amount, the amount which has already been paid by the appellants, namely, Rs. 29,20,866.20 shall be adjusted. If any further sum is due from the appellants, 50% thereof shall be paid in terms of aforesaid order dated 30.8.96, subject to further condition that the appellants shall go on paying 50% of the taxes levied in respect of the premises in question beginning from 1st quarter 1996-97. It is further made clear that if out of the aforementioned amount of Rs. It is further made clear that if out of the aforementioned amount of Rs. 29,20,866.20, any amount has been paid by the Food Corporation of India directly, the same may not be credited to the account of the appellants.” Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order, about Rupees seven lacs had been paid by the Food Corporation of India. It is also accepted at the bar that owing to such payment having been made, the appellants had granted rent receipt after adjusting the said amount. 8. Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 submits that keeping in view the provisions of section 132 aforementioned, whatever amount had been paid by his client should be deemed to have been paid towards occupiers’ share, both in terms of section 132 and 132A of the Act. The learned Counsel further submits that rent receipts were granted by the appellants keeping in view the provisions contained in clauses 12 of the agreement entered into by the between the appellants and the respondent no. 2. 9. Mr. Islam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, when questioned very fairly submitted that separate bill are issued in the names of the occupier and the owner. It was further submitted the excepting a case where section 165 is applicable, recovery proceedings are also separately initiated against the owner/occupier for the purpose of realizing their shares of consolidated rates and taxes and/or surcharges as the case may be. 10. Before considering the questions raised in this appeal, we may at this juncture note that Burdwan Municipality had accepted the fact that they would allow 13% deduction from annual valuation, that is, they would grant 3% additional exemption in respect of the holding in question. We may further record that Mr. Islam submits that the same was granted only in the special facts and circumstances of this case and the same is not to be treated as precedent. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal, this court is not concerned as to whether such exception is to be treated as precedent or not, but the fact remains that separate bills used to be served upon the occupier or owner and in that view of the matter, if any payment has to be made by the respondent no. For the purpose of disposal of the appeal, this court is not concerned as to whether such exception is to be treated as precedent or not, but the fact remains that separate bills used to be served upon the occupier or owner and in that view of the matter, if any payment has to be made by the respondent no. 2 either pursuant to the orders of this court or otherwise, the same is to be deemed to have been made on its own account. The respective payments made by the parties, therefore, should be adjusted from the accounts which have been produced before us. However, there cannot be any doubt that in view of the fact that now 13% exemption had been granted in respect of the holding in question, fresh bills have to be issue separately both to the owner as also to the occupier and only upon service of such bills, the appellants as also the respondents no. 2 would become liable to pay the amount in question within the period mentioned under section 155 of the Act. The interest would, therefore, become payable only in the event of failure on the part of the owner or the occupier to pay such amount within the time stipulated under the aforementioned provisions. It would also be open to the respondent no. 1, in the event legal dues are not paid, to initiate any other appropriate proceeding for imposition of penalty or for recovery of the dues as the case may be. During the pendency of the appeal as 3% additional exemption had been granted, and as also in our opinion, even the original demand was wrong as admitted statutory deduction of 10% had not been granted, which contention of the appellants has also found favour with by the learned Trial Judge. 11. So far as clause 12 of the agreement is concerned, we are of the opinion that by reason of such provision, statutory liability of the occupiers could not have been given a go-bye. The occupiers liability to pay its share of taxes as also surcharges being under a statute, the same shall prevail over any private arrangement made by and between the parties. 12. The occupiers liability to pay its share of taxes as also surcharges being under a statute, the same shall prevail over any private arrangement made by and between the parties. 12. In this view of the matter, it would be open to the appellants to realise such amount or any further amount which might have become payable by the Food Corporation of India to the appellants irrespective of the fact that any rent receipt had been granted upon taking into consideration the amount of taxes already paid by the respondent no. 2 to the respondent no. 1. 13. It appears that there exists a dispute as to whether the lease is still continuing or not. As the said dispute between the appellants and the respondent no. 2 is a private dispute, we do not intend to enter into same in this appeal. The parties may, therefore, take recourse to such remedies which are available to them in law for resolving the said dispute. 14. The appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. There will be no order as to cost. 15. Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for urgently, may be given on priority basis. D.B. Dutta. J : I agree.