JUDGMENT The Court: The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal and the writ application which was heard with consent of the parties is interpretation of section 198 of the CMC Act. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The respondent nos. 6 to 11, being the trustees to the estate of Late Raja Rajendra Mullick Bahadur, are the lessors in respect of premises being 7, Dr. Martin Luther King Sarani, formerly known as 7, Wood Street, Calcutta and admittedly inducted the appellant as a tenant. Allegedly the appellant has raised certain constructions i.e. first floor and second floor on the existing building and let out the same in favour of the respondent Nos. 12 and 13. 2. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal and the writ application it is not necessary to go into the alleged conduct of the parties as admittedly the question which arises for consideration in this appeal and the writ application is as to whether the authority of the CMC should have taken recourse to the procedure laid down under Chapter XVI of the CMC Act, 1980 as against the appellant and its tenants in the facts of the present case. 3. The appellant has filed a writ application inter alia on the ground that it had denied and disputed the correctness of the bills and in any event as a lessee it is not liable to pay the consolidated rates and taxes under the Act. In paragraph 26 of the writ application it is stated as follows:- "Your petitioner further submits that the calculation of the amount alleged to be due for arrears of the consolidated rate is erroneous and should be reduced by Rs. 5,85,137.64. The calculation made by the respondent No. 1, as seen from the reverse of the Notice of Demand, includes:- (a) Rs. 63,315.00 for 1st and 2nd. quarter 1980-81. (b) Rs. 4,62,199.64 paise for third quarter 1980-81 to 4th. quarter 1983-84. (c) Rs. 69,623.00 for first quarter 1984-85 total Rs. 5,85,137.64 Paise." 4. By reason of a letter dated 11.3.1997 the CMC has given out the calculation of the dues and stated thus : "I beg to enclose herewith one Notice of Demand for non-payment of the bills in respect of the above premises in spite of presentation of the bills. (c) Rs. 69,623.00 for first quarter 1984-85 total Rs. 5,85,137.64 Paise." 4. By reason of a letter dated 11.3.1997 the CMC has given out the calculation of the dues and stated thus : "I beg to enclose herewith one Notice of Demand for non-payment of the bills in respect of the above premises in spite of presentation of the bills. I request that you will be so good as to send the amount together with the interest, penalty and other fees due on the bill/bills as noted therein failing which necessary steps will be taken for recovery of the same entailing extra cost." 5. It is not disputed before us that the consolidated rates and taxes had been assessed both in respect of the land and entire structure standing thereon. In other words, the consolidated rates and taxes have been assessed in respect of the entire premises being No. 7, Dr. Martin Luther King Sarani. No separate assessment has been made in respect of the structures allegedly constructed by the appellant and which had been let out to the respondent nos. 12 and 13. 6. Thus, in the facts of this case, it is not necessary for this Court to consider as to whether the petitioner being the alleged owner in respect of a portion of a structure was independently liable to pay consolidated rate in respect thereof. Section 193 (1) and 195 which are material for the purpose of this appeal read thus- "193. Incidence of consolidated rate on lands and buildings- (1) The consolidated rate on lands and buildings shall be primarily leviable,- (a) if the land or building is let, upon the lessor; (b) if the land or building is sublet, upon the superior lessor; (c) if the land or building is unlet, upon the person in whom the right to let such land or building vests;" "195. Recovery of consolidated rate of lands and buildings from occupiers.- (1) On the failure to recover any sum due on account of consolidated rate on any land or building from the person primarily liable therefor under section 193, (the Municipal Commissioner shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 or in any other law for the time being in force, recover) from every occupier of such land or building, by attachment of the rent payable such occupier, a portion of the total sum due which bears, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to that sum as the rent annually payable by such occupier bears to the total amount of rent annually payable in respect of the whole of such land or building. (2) An occupier, from whom any sum is recovered under sub-section (1), shall be entitled to be reimbursed by the person primarily liable for the payment of such sum, and may, in addition to having recourse to other remedies that may be open to him, deduct the amount so recovered from the amount of any rent becoming due from time to time from him to such person." 7. Section 193 being a charging provision in case of letting out or sub-letting, a person primarily liable is the lessor or the superior lessor, as the case may be. When a recovery proceeding is taken in respect of consolidated rate of land and building, recourse to section 195 of the said Act can only be taken. The CMC can also attach the rent exists an agreement between the original owner and the appellant/writ petitioner herein to that effect that all rates and taxes shall be paid by it. 8. An agreement between the parties to a contract whether in a suit or otherwise, cannot supersede the statutory provisions. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act is a statutory authority. Having been created under a statute, it must, therefore, act within the four corners of a statute. 8. An agreement between the parties to a contract whether in a suit or otherwise, cannot supersede the statutory provisions. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act is a statutory authority. Having been created under a statute, it must, therefore, act within the four corners of a statute. It is not necessary for us, for the purpose of disposal of the appeal and the writ application, to decide as to whether by reason of such agreement, the appellant would be contractually liable to pay the rates and taxes, but, even assuming that such contract exists, it can be enforced only by the other contracting party unless before the Calcutta Municipal Corporation both the parties have presented the same set of agreement and the said contract has been accepted by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. No such case has been made out. 9. Mr. Das Adhikari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Calcutta Municipal Corporation, however, has relied upon the provisions of the West Bengal Building Tax Act. Having gone through the provisions of the said Act, we are of the opinion that the said Act has got nothing to do with the taxable event, assessment or recovery proceedings under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act. Both the Acts contain separate and distinct provisions and the authorities under both the Acts are definition of 'owner' as contained in section 2 (62) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which reads as follows:- "(62) 'Owner' includes the person for the time being receiving the rent of any land or building or of any part of any land or building, whether on his own account or as agent or trustees for any person or society or for any religious or charitable purpose or as a receiver who would receive such rent if the land or building or of any part of any land or building were let to a tenant;" 10. The learned Counsel submits that in view of the aforementioned definition, a lessee may also become lessor in respect of his tenants. This may be so, but it has to be borne in mind that the Act has used three different expressions, namely, 'owner', 'lessor' and 'superior lessor'. The learned Counsel submits that in view of the aforementioned definition, a lessee may also become lessor in respect of his tenants. This may be so, but it has to be borne in mind that the Act has used three different expressions, namely, 'owner', 'lessor' and 'superior lessor'. In case of a lease, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 193 makes the lessor as a person primarily liable and in case of a sub-lease, the superior lessor is made primarily liable in relation to the subject matter of the sub-lease by reason of clause (b) thereof. 11. In that view of the matter, although the appellant may be realising rent from its tenants, as there had been a consolidated assessment in respect of the entire land and buildings, in the facts of this case only the Mullicks would be the lessor or superior lessor in respect of the premises in question and, thus, are statutorily liable to pay the rates and taxes under the Act. 12. In M/s. United Investment Corporation & Anr. appellant vs. Corporation of India, reported in AIR 1982 Cal 388 , upon which strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Das Adhikari, a Division Bench of this Court was considering the provisions of the said Act, it was held that a person who has constructed the building although being a lessee and having let out to other persons, also comes within the purview of definition of "owner". That may be so, but the charging provisions under the 1955 Act, as contained in section 165 thereof did not contain a similar provision, like section 193 of the present Act. Moreover, the question as to whether the petitioner has constructed the first and the second floors and, if so, on what terms and conditions has to be considered and determined by an appropriate Court/Authority. A person can be made liable to pay tax on, under a statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India clearly postulates that tax can be levied only under a statute, as indicated hereinbefore, a taxation has three elements, namely, taxable event, assessment and recovery. A person can be made liable to pay tax on, under a statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India clearly postulates that tax can be levied only under a statute, as indicated hereinbefore, a taxation has three elements, namely, taxable event, assessment and recovery. The charging provisions under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, being section 183, we cannot, by reason of a judicial interpretation, make a third person liable who is neither the lessor nor the superior lessor in respect of the entire land and the building for which assessment has been made. The remedy of Calcutta Municipal Corporation as against the petitioner and its tenants was only in terms of section 195, read with section 225 of the said Act. 13. The respondent/Corporation was, therefore, not authorised to issue a distress warrant and realise the amount from the appellant and the respondent nos. 12 and 13, as has been sought to be done in the instant case. The procedures under sections 219 and 220 could only be taken recourse to if despite demands in terms of section 195 and/or section 225 of the said Act, no account is deposited in terms of such notice of demand. Unless the proviso of section 195 or section 225 of the said Act is taken recourse to, the question of resorting to the provisions of section 219 and 220 of the said Act as against the lessee or sub-lessee does not arise. 14. For the reasons aforementioned, this writ application is allowed and the impugned demand is set aside. However, it would be open to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to realise the arrears from the persons liable and it would further be open to it to take recourse to such provisions as are available to it for recovery of the taxes. 15. Any amount paid by the appellant to the Corporation may be adjusted from the amount of rent payable by the appellant from its lessors, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. The respondent nos. 6 to 11 can also take recourse to any such remedy as against the petitioner in respect of their demand as it available to them in law. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 18. 16. The respondent nos. 6 to 11 can also take recourse to any such remedy as against the petitioner in respect of their demand as it available to them in law. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 18. All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertakings. Writ application is allowed and impugned demand is set aside.