JUDGMENT : A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. 1. The petitioner constructed a residential building and a storage room separately. The residential building initially constructed is not exigible to luxury tax for the reason that plinth area is less than 278.7 sq.meters. Subsequent to the completion of the construction, it appears that the petitioner filled up the open space between the two buildings upto the floor level and formed a corridor. The corridor is found to have a tiled floor. The roof of both the buildings was overlapping. Thus the corridor is insulated against rain water. The question is whether the two buildings can be aggregated for reckoning the plinth area for the purpose of luxury tax. 2. This litigation is having a chequered history. As of now, the independent report that could be relied on in this matter is the report prepared by the Assistant Executive Engineer. The report substantiates the above facts as observed by this Court. Therefore, a decision is now being rendered by this Court on the basis of the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer. 3. The taxable event referable under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, of a particular building is for the use of residential purpose and the same is having a plinth area of more than 278.7 sq.meters. The building may have a different meaning for the purpose of determining plinth area for calculating building tax. However, for the purpose of determining the plinth area, the building in all respect must qualify a residential building. This is so clear from the proviso to Section 6 of the Act which says that plinth area of a garage or any other erection or structure appurtenant to a residential building used for storage of firewood or for any non residential purpose shall not be taken into account for determining the plinth area of that building. No doubt, if two independent buildings are aggregated forming part of the same residential building, certainly that plinth area will have to be reckoned. Therefore, the most important thing to be taken into account while aggregating such independent building is whether both buildings are being used for residential purpose or not. If one building remains as residential and the other as non- residential, both cannot be aggregated for the purpose of luxury tax. Therefore, the most important thing to be taken into account while aggregating such independent building is whether both buildings are being used for residential purpose or not. If one building remains as residential and the other as non- residential, both cannot be aggregated for the purpose of luxury tax. As already observed, aggregation of both the buildings may count for the purpose of determining the building tax. But, it cannot be taken into account for the purpose of determination of plinth area for levy of the luxury tax unless it is shown that both the buildings are to be used for residential purpose. In the absence of any case being put forward that storage room is used for residential purpose, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. However, it is made clear that the very moment the petitioner changes the use of the storage building as residential purpose, certainly, the authority can levy luxury tax from the petitioner. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that if this proposition is accepted, in the case of residential building later converted to commercial purpose, the owner will be absolved from payment of tax. This Court is of the view that this argument is misconceived for the reason that once the building is found exigible to luxury tax, the subsequent change of use will not absolve a person from paying the luxury tax. Though luxury tax is payable periodically, taxable event is referable to plinth area of 278.7 sq. meters used in any point of time and not based on periodical return or assessment. In the event if two different buildings; one residential and other non residential, are converted into a single residential building, the moment it is converted as residential building, the building is exigible to luxury tax. Therefore, it has to be proved that both independent buildings now connected to each other is being used as residential building. Merely because two independent buildings are connected by a corridor itself will not make such buildings exigible to luxury tax unless such non residential building has been converted as residential building. It is submitted that the petitioner had paid luxury tax based on the interim order passed in the earlier litigations. However, this Court had not directed to refund luxury tax on being found that the petitioner is not liable to pay luxury tax. It is submitted that the petitioner had paid luxury tax based on the interim order passed in the earlier litigations. However, this Court had not directed to refund luxury tax on being found that the petitioner is not liable to pay luxury tax. Therefore, this Court cannot order refund of luxury tax already paid by the petitioner based on the interim order passed in the earlier litigations. This writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned orders.