Judgment :- Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding single assessment of 13 flats made up into 12 numbers as a single building in a flat complex. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Government Pleader for respondents. 2. The facts leading to the controversy are the following. The appellant along with his two sisters, the joint owners of 54 cents of land, gave it to a builder under an agreement for development and construction of a residential flat complex comprising of 58 flats. As consideration for the grant, under the agreement Builder was bound to give appellant 13 flats made up into 12 numbers by combining two flats together for appellant's residence and two each flats to appellant's sisters and remaining 41 flats were allowed to be sold by the Builder to customers. When separate returns were filed for assessment of each and every flat separately, the Tahsildar assessed the 12 flats including one combination of two flats as a single building and the two flats each of appellant's sisters were also clubbed together and assessed as a single building. However, so far as the 41 flats built and sold by the builder are concerned, all are assessed as separate units by applying Explanation (2) to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act (hereinafter called "the Act"). The appellant questioned the single assessment of 12 flats in his name as according to him, these flats are also entitled to be assessed as individual units by applying the very same Explanation. However, this was rejected by the Assessing Officer as well as in appeal by the R.D.O. against which Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge, however, by following Full Bench judgment of this court in DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. SREEKUMARI KUNJAMMA reported in 2011(1) KLT 248 (F.B.) rejected the claim against which Writ Appeal is filed. 3. Counsel for the appellant in the first place submitted that Full Bench decision has no application because that was a case pertaining to a two storied building with two apartments owned by the same person, the assessment of which as a single unit was upheld by the Full Bench by declaring that Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) does not apply to a building with two flats owned by the same person. There can be no controversy on this because the building, the assessment of which was considered by the Full Bench is only a two storied building and the two flats are owned by the very same person. On the other hand, in this case the apartment complex is assessed as 41 + 3 = 44 flats by applying Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Act. So much so, the only question that remains to be considered is whether the very same Explanation applied by the Assessing Officer for assessment of the flats other than those belonging to appellant and his sisters should apply for assessment of their flats also. Since situation of this kind will repeatedly arise, we feel for the guidance of Assessing officers we should explain the scope of Explanation with reference to buildings of the type referred to herein. Accordingly we extract hereunder the definition clause of "building" with Explanation 2: "S.2(e) "building" means a house, out-house, garage, or any other structure, or part thereof, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, metal or other material, but does not include any portable shelter or any shed constructed principally of mud, bamboos, leaves, grass or thatch or a latrine which is not attached to the main structure. .............. Explanation 2. Where a building consists of different apartments or flats owned by different persons and the cost of construction of the building was met by all such persons jointly, each such apartment or flat shall be deemed to be a separate building." What is clear from Section 2(e) is that "building" is given a very wide meaning taking in it, even a part of the building or even a structure. In view of the wide meaning given to the definition clause, it is always for the Assessing Officer to consider the facts available in each case and to decide whether a building in the literal sense should be assessed as a single unit or whether it should be assessed in parts. The definition clause, even with the Explanations, may not exhaustively cover all kinds of buildings to be assessed. However, so far as apartment buildings are concerned, we feel Explanation 2 is very clear and it's scope is free from any doubt. In fact, this Explanation only creates a legal fiction declaring each apartment in a building as a separate building itself for assessment. However, so far as apartment buildings are concerned, we feel Explanation 2 is very clear and it's scope is free from any doubt. In fact, this Explanation only creates a legal fiction declaring each apartment in a building as a separate building itself for assessment. The conditions to be satisfied are: i) Separate ownership of apartments contained in the building. ii) Cost of construction of the building should be met by all such persons who ultimately own the apartments after completion of construction. 4. In this case the controversy in the first place is whether the appellant has shared the construction cost with the builder which is seriously disputed by the Government Pleader by stating that assigning the right in land to the builder to build and sell the fats on condition of constructing and delivering few flats to the owners of the land does not amount to sharing of cost as stated in the Explanation. However, counsel for the appellant submitted that consideration for assigning the land in part to the builder or to his nominees is received by the appellant and his sisters being owners of the land in the form of built up area in the building and not as cash consideration. According to counsel, it makes no difference whether the value of the flats constructed and delivered to them were received first in cash and then given to the builder for construction or instead treat it as notional consideration and receive the consideration in the form of built up area. We are in complete agreement with this argument of the counsel because when the builder constructs and sells the flats and uses the consideration for construction of the entire building, the value of the built up area given to the appellant by the builder as consideration for getting the right amounts to sharing of cost of construction of the building. So much so, the Explanation applies to a situation where the land owner receives consideration for right in land partly assigned in favour of other apartment owners, even in the form of built up area. We, therefore, hold that the Explanation on sharing the cost of construction, is satisfied so far as appellant and his two sisters are concerned. 5. So much so, the Explanation applies to a situation where the land owner receives consideration for right in land partly assigned in favour of other apartment owners, even in the form of built up area. We, therefore, hold that the Explanation on sharing the cost of construction, is satisfied so far as appellant and his two sisters are concerned. 5. The next question to be considered is whether the entire block of 13 flats made up into 12 should be treated as a single building or should be assessed as separate flats, all in the name of it's owner namely, the appellant. It is very clear from the Explanation that the apartment building is not to be divided for building tax assessment with the number of owners, but with the number of flats. In other words, irrespective of the number of owners owning the apartment building, each flat is to be assessed as a separate building by virtue of the specific provision contained in the Explanation. Even though Government Pleader contended that such of the flats owned by a single person in an apartment building has to be assessed as a single building, we do not find support for this proposition in the Explanation. In fact, several flats assigned to a single person in an apartment building may also constitute a "building" under the main definition clause i.e. Section 2(e) because part of building also answers definition of "building". However, when Explanation 2 is applied to an apartment building, there is no scope for assessment of part of such building other than as a separate apartment. So much so, appellant's contention that each and every flat has to be assessed separately in his case also by applying Explanation 2 is perfectly justified. However, the two flats combined together for appellant's residence is rightly assessable as a single unit and the appellant also has no dispute on this. We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allow the W.P.(C) by quashing the single assessment of the 13 flats made up into 12 in appellant's name with direction to the Tahsildar to make 12 separate assessments for each and every flat in the name of the appellant. We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allow the W.P.(C) by quashing the single assessment of the 13 flats made up into 12 in appellant's name with direction to the Tahsildar to make 12 separate assessments for each and every flat in the name of the appellant. Whatever is the excess tax paid should be refunded to the appellant after revision of assessment as above, within a period of three months from date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 6. Before parting with the subject, we feel the whole Building Tax Act needs to be amended, particularly those relating to the provisions for assessment of residential and commercial apartments and also on the vague provisions pertaining to assessment of buildings owned by charitable institutions including those let out by such institutions. In the name of interpretation of law by the High Court, Government seems to leave legislation by the court which certainly should not be encouraged. In our view, the exemptions provided in the Schedule need not be applied to commercial buildings and apartment buildings. Leaving all matters to the Legislature to consider, we feel it is high time the statute needs modification to take care of the new pattern of structures coming up in the State.