1. The appellant/assessee has preferred this appeal under section 10-A of the J&K UIP Tax Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" in short) against the order dated 30-06-2004 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Sales Tax (Appeals), Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Authority" in short) whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant/assessee under section 10 of the Act against the order dated 08-03-1997 passed by the Assessing Authority, UIP Tax-I (hereinafter referred to as "the Assessing Authority" in short) has been dismissed. 2. The material facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are that the Assessing Authority passed an assessment order under section 9 of the Act on 08-03-1997 determining the GARV of the property of the appellant/assessee at Rs. 72,816/- and Rs. 86,904/- and created tax liability of Rs. 11,818/- and Rs. 14, 607/- per annum for the period April 1991 to September 1993 and October 1993 onwards respectively. The appellant/assessee being aggrieved by this order of the Assessing Authority preferred an appeal before the AppellateAuthority which was dismissed on 30-06-2004. Not satisfied with this order of the Appellate Authority, the appellant/assessee has preferred this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record on the file. 4. Mr. S. Dutt, Advocate, appearing for the appellant/asssessee has submitted that the property was joint between the appellant/assessee and his mother and in this respect partnership deed was also executed. This partnership was dissolved and since then the appellant/assessee is the owner of 50% share only and is thus liable to pay tax to the half portion of the building. On the other hand, Mr. M.A. Bhat, Advocate appearing for the revenue has pleaded that the orders of the lower Authorities are passed in consonance of law and evidence on the record. 5. It is true that liability to pay tax under the Act is upon the owner of the premises which is assessed to property tax. In the present case the case of the appellant/assessee is that he is owner of 50% of the property rented out to J&K Bank and the remaining rent of 50% is shared by all the legal heirs of his mother who was owner till her death. In the present case the case of the appellant/assessee is that he is owner of 50% of the property rented out to J&K Bank and the remaining rent of 50% is shared by all the legal heirs of his mother who was owner till her death. Thus the question involves in this appeal is as to whether the appellant/assessee is full owner or owner to the extent of 50% of the property which is rented out to the J&K Bank and is assessed to UIP Tax under the Act. 6. From the perusal of record it appears that a communication has been received from the Manager, J&K Bank Limited, Rehari Branch, stating that the Bank was paying monthly rent @ Rs. 7042/- w.e.f. 01-10-1993 and prior to that the monthly rent was Rs. 5,868/-. It is further stated that the rent was being paid to Sh. N.K. Vaid landlord of the premises by means of a Payee Account Cheque. This communication clearly shows that the appellant/assessee had been receiving the rent from the J&K Bank through a Payee Account Cheque. On the other hand, the case of the appellant/assessee is that this property was jointly constructed by him alongwith his mother and both were owner of 50% share each. This partnership was dissolved. In proving his plea the appellant/assessee has produced photostat copies of income tax returns submitted by the mother of the appellant/assessee for the assessment year 1986-87 and 1990-91. These returns pertain to the period prior to the period for which assessment has been made under the Act. It is also alleged that after the death of the mother of the appellant/assessee, her share in the rent is received by the legal heirs of the mother of the appellant/assessee. The details of the legal heirs and the date of death of the mother of the appellant have not been given by the appellant/assessee in the case. The learned Appellate Authority asked the appellant/assessee number of times to intimate the names of other co sharers of the property after the death of the mother of the appellant/assessee and also to produce the copy of the partnership deed and the copies of the rent deed with the J&K Bank but the appellant/assessee had not produced the same. 7. The learned Appellate Authority asked the appellant/assessee number of times to intimate the names of other co sharers of the property after the death of the mother of the appellant/assessee and also to produce the copy of the partnership deed and the copies of the rent deed with the J&K Bank but the appellant/assessee had not produced the same. 7. In view of the positive documentary evidence stating that the rent of the property rented out to the J&K Bank Limited has been received by the appellant/assessee by means of a payees account cheque, it can be said that the appellant/assessee received the amount of rent in full. The payee Account Cheque can be got cashed by depositing the same in his account. The appellant/assessee has not lead any evidence to show that after getting it cashed he has been paying or distributing 50% share to other co sharers after the death of his mother or to his mother before her death. In view of the positive documentary evidence in the shape of letter of the Manager, J&K Bank Limited, Rehari and the report of inspector the appellant/assessee has failed to rebut the same by adducing any evidence to prove his case. Rule 9 of the J&K Urban Immovable Property Tax Rules, 1962 lays duty upon the owner of the property to report any transfer of the ownership within a period of two months from such transfer. No body has reported this matter to the concerned under this Rule. Even the appellant/assessee has not intimated the same. Mere assertion that the appellant/assessee had been receiving 50% share in the rent received from the Bank without any proof to that effect shall not absolve the liability of the appellant/assessee from payment of property tax. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that the appellant/assessee has failed to prove that he is the owner of 50% share of the property rented out to J&K Bank Limited, Rehari and the appellant/assessee was thus liable to pay property tax for this property. Accordingly, I would hold that the order of the learned Appellate Authority is perfectly valid and does not warrant any interference by this Tribunal. The appeal of the appellant/assessee deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. The appeal file be consigned to records. The record of the lower Authority be sent back forthwith.