Judgment :- Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. It has been stated that the third petitioner is the co-owner of the property bearing Door No.117, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai, having an undivided share in the said property. The property in question is a commercial building, which has been purchased, under a deed of sale, dated 18.11.1987, and registered as document No.127 of 1988, on 20.1.1988, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Kodambakkam. The said property had been purchased by a Company in the name of First in Fashions Exports Private Limited and by the father of the third petitioner, with equal shares in it. 3. It had been further stated that Vashi Mangaram Mahtani the father of petitioners 2, 3 and 4 had died, on 30.8.2010. He is survived by the third petitioner’s mother Shanu V.Mahtani, the first petitioner herein, his brother Ajay V.Mahtani and his sister Nithya Kumara Govindan, the second and the fourth petitioners respectively. The southern portion of the basement having an extent of 4000 sq.ft. was owned by the Company, while the northern portion of the basement of the said property was in occupation by the Company, as a tenant. All the taxes relating to the property had been paid by the Company, till the first half of the year, 2007-08. 4. It had been further stated that after the death of the third petitioner's father, the property had devolved on his legal heirs. Therefore, a representation had been made to the authorities concerned, for permitting the legal heirs to pay the taxes, in respect of their shares in the property in question. The first petitioner had made a representation, dated 19.4.2012, requesting the second respondent to assess the northern portion of the basement, having an extent of 4,000 sq.ft., separately, and change the assessment of the property in the name of the legal heirs of the petitioner’s father, as per law. 5. It had also been stated that the third petitioner had nothing to do with the owner of the southern portion of the property, which had been purchased by Zita Vijay, from the Company. There was no response to the said representation sent by the third petitioner. 5. It had also been stated that the third petitioner had nothing to do with the owner of the southern portion of the property, which had been purchased by Zita Vijay, from the Company. There was no response to the said representation sent by the third petitioner. However, the third petitioner had received a demand notice, dated 12.6.2012, from the second respondent, to pay a sum of Rs.3,35,154/-, and a copy of the said demand had been sent to the purchaser of the other portion of the property, namely, Zita Vijay. In such circumstances, the petitioners had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has been stated that the writ petition, filed by the petitioners, is not maintainable, in view of Section 103, read with Section 106 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. Under section 103 of the said Act, the Corporation of Chennai has got the first charge on the property, with regard to the arrears of the property tax. Section 106 of the Act creates an obligation on the transferor and the transferee of the property in question, to give notice of the transfer to the Commissioner of the Corporation. Therefore, the liability of the transferee, for the payment of arrears of the property tax or the prior claim of the Corporation, under Section 103 of the Act, would not be affected. Therefore, the petitioners are bound to pay the entire arrears of the property tax, in respect of 8,134 sq.ft., in the basement area of the premises in question. Any request for sub division of the area would be considered only on the payment of the entire arrears of the property tax, by the petitioners. The writ petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed for non-jointer of the necessary party, namely, First in Fashions Exports Private Limited. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is found that the property tax had been assessed, as a single assessment, in the name of First in Fashions Exports Private Limited, for the entire area of the premises in question. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is found that the property tax had been assessed, as a single assessment, in the name of First in Fashions Exports Private Limited, for the entire area of the premises in question. Any subsequent changes in the ownership of the property in question ought to have been brought to the notice of the authorities concerned, at the relevant point of time. The second respondent had issued the impugned letter, dated 12.6.2012, calling upon the third petitioner to pay the entire arrears of tax, only in view of the fact that the entire basement area of the property in question was under the single assessment made in the name of First in Fashions Exports Private Limited. 8. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the petitioners to file a detailed representation to the first respondent, along with the relevant documents in support of their contentions, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such a representation, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, considering the claims of the petitioners, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to them. In case of complicated issues arising for the consideration of the first respondent, during the enquiry to be conducted by him, the petitioners may be directed to resolve such disputes before an appropriate civil forum. However, if the issues arising for the consideration of the first respondent could be resolved, based on the documents furnished by the petitioners, during the enquiry, it would be open to the first respondent to resolve such issues before fresh demands are made for the payment of the property tax, in respect of the property in question. The first respondent shall consider the claims of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon, as directed by this Court, as expeditiously as possible. It is also made clear that no coercive steps should be taken by the respondents, in respect of the property tax said to be payable by them, till final orders are passed by the first respondent, as directed by this Court. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.