ORDER : 1. W.P. No. 16413 of 2017 challenges a resolution passed by the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation (R1), Resolution No. 206/2017, to quash the same as being illegal and arbitrary and to direct R1 to afford opportunity to the association prior to classifying the property for the purposes of levy of property tax, prospectively. The writ petitions filed by the individuals challenge demands of property tax made based on the resolution impugned in the writ petitions filed by the association and consequent demands of water and sewerage tax. I first take up W.P. No. 16413 of 2017 for adjudication and disposal. The admitted facts are as follows:- (i) The petitioner is an association that seeks a certiorarified mandamus calling for Resolution bearing No. 206/2017, dated 28.03.2017 issued by the Greater Chennai Corporation, arrayed as the first respondent, and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to implement the order of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1333 to 1342 of 2014 and to assess the petitioner mansion as tenant occupation and not as tenant commercial. (ii) The petitioner association comprises of individual members who own and manage mansions in Zone V and IX in Triplicane coming within the jurisdiction of the first respondent. (iii) The mansions comprise of rooms that are rented out to various tenants either on a fortnightly or monthly basis depending upon the requirements of the tenants. (iv) The petitioner contends that the individual tenants are required to utilize the property only for residential and not for commercial purposes and the documentation entered into inter se would specifically provide for the same. (v) Buildings are treated as residential units for several years for the purposes of assessment of property taxes. (vi) In the year 2009, there was a revision of the rate of property tax pursuant to Resolution No. 288/2009 wherein the Corporation brought in a new categorization for mansions as Tenant Commercial instead of Tenant Occupation. Recommendations were made for imposition of tax based on this revised classification. (vii) The operative portion of the said resolution re-classified the buildings as Tenant Commercial and Tenant Occupation and consequently imposed a new and enhanced rate of taxes thereupon. Recommendations were made for imposition of tax based on this revised classification. (vii) The operative portion of the said resolution re-classified the buildings as Tenant Commercial and Tenant Occupation and consequently imposed a new and enhanced rate of taxes thereupon. (viii) The re-classification was challenged before this Court in various writ petitions and a learned Single Judge of this Court by her order dated 21.09.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 4179 of 2011 batch, quashed the said Resolution, as being violative of Sections 98-A and 100 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act 1919 (in short Act) and set-aside the demand notices. Inter-alia, the learned Judge states thus:- "Apart from this, with regard to the merits of the issue, i.e. unless the occupant uses the building for commercial purposes, it cannot be treated as a commercial one and as for as other things are concerned, in view of the fact that the procedure contemplated under Section 98-A and 100 of the Act have not been followed, I am of the opinion, that to meet the ends of justice, the impugned resolution as well as the demand notices are to be set aside and the matters are to be remitted back to the respondent Corporation with a direction to follow the procedure contemplated under Sections 98-A and 100 of the Act and to issue fresh proceedings. In view of this, I am not inclined to give a finding with regard to the arguments advanced on the merits of the issue. In view of the above, all the writ petitions are disposed of setting aside the impugned resolution No. 288 of 2009 dated 31.07.2009 as well as the respective demand notices and the matters are remitted back to the respondent Corporation with a direction to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 98-A and 100 of the Act and to issue fresh orders. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." 2. The State filed a Writ Appeal challenging the above order and a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." 2. The State filed a Writ Appeal challenging the above order and a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 1333 to 1342 of 2014 batch, closed the writ appeal affirming the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the re-classification of the buildings as Tenant Commercial instead of Tenant Occupation and the imposition of enhanced rate of tax without seeking the views of the affected owners of the property and without following the procedure contemplated under the Act, was impermissible. 3. Thereafter the Association appears to have made representations to the respondents on various dates. Though no response has been received in regard to the representations, it appears that the proposal to re-classify the buildings was still active and the Corporation issued public notices in Daily Thanthi, (issue dated 13.08.2015), The New Indian Express, (issue dated 13.08.2015) and the Government Gazette (No. 39 dated 30.09.2015) putting the public to notice of the proposed change. The notifications are identical and one such is extracted hereunder for clarity:- CORPORATION OF CHENNAI REVENUE DEPARTMENT R.D.C. No. G1/6910/2009, dated 03.08.2015 NOTIFICATION U/s. 100 of CCMC Act, 1919, the property tax is levied by Chennai Corporation based on the annual rent reasonably be expected to let from month to month or from year to year. The property tax shall be assessed with reference to the guidelines issued by the Council under Taxation Rule 3 (3) The buildings such as Mansions, Serviced apartments, Guest Houses and Gents/Ladies Hostels are not being used similar to the residential properties but being used as commercial properties. Whereas, the Council in its Resolution No. 316/2015, dated 06.07.2015 has resolved to levy the property tax for the buildings being used for Mansion, Serviced apartments, Guest House and Gents/Ladies Hostel purpose under "tenant commercial" category w.e.f.1/2009-10 and has directed to publish a notice u/s.98-A of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 for submission of objections. Whereas, this notification is published as per Section 98-A of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. The proposed changes stated above would be taken up for consideration by Chennai Corporation after 30 days from the date of publication of this notice. Objections if any in this regard may be informed in writing to the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600003. DIPR/999/Display/2015 Principal Secretary/Commissioner 4. The proposed changes stated above would be taken up for consideration by Chennai Corporation after 30 days from the date of publication of this notice. Objections if any in this regard may be informed in writing to the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600003. DIPR/999/Display/2015 Principal Secretary/Commissioner 4. It is pursuant to the above notice that the impugned resolution, bearing No. 206 of 2017, dated 28.03.2017, has been passed resolving that (i) mansions (ii) service apartments (iii) guest houses and (iv) hostels (both for men and women), will be classified as Tenant Commercial with effect from the first half of 2011-12. 5. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the above resolution and seeking an opportunity prior to determining the classification of the property in question. 6. The main contentions raised by the petitioners are that the re-classification of the property in question is itself without proper opportunity (ii) the classification of the property should be as residential with the consequential and appropriate rate of tax imposed and (iii) in any event and without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, the re-classification and levy ought not to have been made with retrospective effect. 7. Mr. T.C. Gopalakrishnan, appearing for the Chennai Corporation for his part, defends the Resolution as well as the consequential demands made. He would state that the Resolution has been passed after adequate opportunity was given to the members of the affected public and thus the direction of the Division Bench to this effect has been fully complied with. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the public notices and the gazette referred to by me in the sequence of facts (See para 4 of this order) As regards the classification of the property, he states that it is the usage that the mansions owners/tenants put the property to that will determine its classification. As far as retrospectively is concerned, he relies on the provisions of Section 98A of the Act to bring home the fact that it is well within the power of the Corporation to pass a Resolution to determine both the classification of the property as well as the period of levy of tax. 8. Heard the detailed submissions of Mr. P. Vijendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Narmada Sampath, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. T.C. Gopalakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel, for the Greater Chennai Corporation. 8. Heard the detailed submissions of Mr. P. Vijendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Narmada Sampath, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. T.C. Gopalakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel, for the Greater Chennai Corporation. 9. The Division Bench of this Court, in its order, dated 21.11.2014 has stated thus:- "6. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the re-classification of the buildings as tenant commercial instead of tenant occupation would change the classification as such or it is only a simple levy of a new rate of tax. 7. There is no dispute that the appellant assessed the buildings as tenant occupation originally and levied tax accordingly. The assessees were paying the tax at the rate prescribed for buildings shown as tenant occupation. It was, for the first time, the Corporation changed the assessment as tenant commercial by passing a resolution. By changing the nature of assessment, not only the rate of tax is changed, but, even the classification is changed. We are not in a position to accept the argument on the side of the Corporation that only the rate of tax was changed and not the assessment. The very resolution shows that the nature of assessment was completely changed. The assessees, therefore, were correct in their contention that before making such a substantial change in the classification, notice should have been issued to them. This aspect was rightly considered by the learned Single Judge and resultantly, the resolution was quashed. We do not find any reason to take a different view in the matter. 8. The appellant is given liberty to issue notices to the assessees to change the classification as tenant commercial instead of tenant occupation. They should be given reasonable time to submit their response. It is open to the Corporation thereafter to pass appropriate orders on merits and as per law. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the assessees submitted that re-assessment on retrospective basis should not be made by the Corporation. We do not propose to make any observation either with regard to the change of assessment or with regard to the effective date of implementation of new classification. It is for the Corporation to take a decision in the matter on merits and in accordance with law." 10. We do not propose to make any observation either with regard to the change of assessment or with regard to the effective date of implementation of new classification. It is for the Corporation to take a decision in the matter on merits and in accordance with law." 10. There is no dispute upon the position that public notices have been issued and it is only pursuant thereto that the impugned Resolution has been passed. I am of the view that the public notices issued in newspapers having significant circulation in the City of Chennai, both in English as well as in Vernacular as well publication in the Government Gazette, would suffice for the purpose of grant of opportunity as far as the question of introduction of a new classification for property is concerned. Moreover, the classification of a specific property would depend entirely upon its usage and would have to be determined by the respondents on a case-to-case basis. For this purpose, no doubt, separate notices are being issued and it is only after hearing the individual owners of the properties and affording them ample and adequate opportunity that the assessment of the mansions will be completed in each case. Thus the submissions of the petitioner on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice have no merit and are rejected. 11. On the aspect of classification, the Resolution reflects the intention of the Chennai Corporation to assess as Tenant commercial those units that are being put to use by the owners as commercial, business propositions. The relevant portion of the Resolution is extracted below: “TAMIL” 12. It is a long-settled position that the classification of a property for the purposes of levy of property tax is based on the usage to which the owner/occupant puts it. In the present case what is sought to be taxed as commercial, are those properties that are being put to commercial use by the owners/occupants. Sections 100 and 101 of the City Municipal Corporations Act 1919 (in short ‘Act’) set out the basis of classification and assessment of properties. The provisions are extracted below: 100. Minimum and maximum basic property tax, additional basic property tax, etc. - The State Government shall prescribe the minimum and the maximum rates of: (a) basic property tax for the building or land having regard to: (i) The existing property tax. The provisions are extracted below: 100. Minimum and maximum basic property tax, additional basic property tax, etc. - The State Government shall prescribe the minimum and the maximum rates of: (a) basic property tax for the building or land having regard to: (i) The existing property tax. (ii) The value of the building and land. (iii) The use of the building. (b) Additional basic property tax for every building with reference to its location. (bb) Addition basic property tax for every building with reference to its type of construction. (c) The concession with regard to age of the building. 101. Determination of basic property tax, additional basic property tax, etc. by Council: (1) The basic property tax, the additional basic property tax and the concession, if any, with regard to the age, for every building or land shall be determined by the Council subject to the minimum and maximum rates prescribed by the State Government under section 100. (2) The Council shall notify the rates determined under sub-section (1) and such other particulars and in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) (i)(a) The basic property tax for every building shall related to the carpet area of the building and its usage: Provided that the carpet area of any building shall not include the open verandah, a open court-yard or any other open space which is not enclosed. (b) The classification of the building for the purpose of deciding the usage of any building shall be residential, commercial, industrial or any other classification as may be prescribed. ........... 13. The classification and assessment of a property to property tax under the Act is thus on the basis of its extent and usage. The term ‘usage’ has to be seen both from the context of the owner as well as the occupier. Thus in the cases of owners leasing their property, simpliciter, to a tenant who uses the same for residential purposes, the usage would be residential; if used for commercial purposes by the tenant, then it would be assessed to commercial rates. If on the other hand, the owner engages in the activity of ‘leasing of properties’ as a business activity by itself, such properties are liable to be taxed under the head ‘commercial’, notwithstanding that the occupier may be residing therein. If on the other hand, the owner engages in the activity of ‘leasing of properties’ as a business activity by itself, such properties are liable to be taxed under the head ‘commercial’, notwithstanding that the occupier may be residing therein. The classification of such property would thus be ‘commercial’ based on the usage to which the owner has put it to, being a commercial, business activity. 14. For instance, if a property comprises ground and four(4) floors, the ground, 1st and 2nd being used for commercial purposes and 3rd and 4th being self-occupied by the owner for his residence, the properties are assessed accordingly i.e. ground to 3rd on commercial rates and 4th and 5th at residential rates. Assume that the owner carries on the business of renting of properties and lets out the ground to third floors as office space and the 4th and 5th as service apartments, the usage of the entire property by the owner is for the purpose of his business of leasing of properties. Thus, the properties on floors 4 and 5 would also fall within the ambit of commercial use at commercial rates, notwithstanding their use as temporary residence by the occupants thereof. 15. The term ‘business’ is defined by the Black's Law Dictionary is a commercial enterprise carried on for profit; a particular occupation or employment habitually engaged in for livelihood or gain. The owners of the mansion admittedly and without doubt are engaged in leasing of rooms as a commercial activity and the classification is thus to be based on the use that the owner of the property puts such property to. 16. It is also not in dispute that the members of the petitioner association are owners of the mansions and have been renting the rooms/units out to lessees for several years, either on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. Such continued and repetitive activity of leasing is precisely what constitutes business activity and the new classification introduced being Tenant-commercial is thus perfectly in order in these circumstances. 17. Useful reference may also be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 373 ITR 673 Though rendered in the context of the Income Tax Act 1961, the principle laid down will be applicable to the present case, on all fours. 17. Useful reference may also be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 373 ITR 673 Though rendered in the context of the Income Tax Act 1961, the principle laid down will be applicable to the present case, on all fours. The Court was concerned with whether the income earned from the activity of leasing of immovable properties was to be assessed under the head business income or rental income. 18. The Court held that the determinative factor would be whether the activity had been carried on by the company merely as an incidental devise to exploit its assets or as a systematic and concerted business activity. The Memorandum and objects of the company in that case, revealed that the company was incorporated with the object of leasing of properties and such activity had also generated substantial income in its hands. Thus, the Court concluded that the income would be assessable as income from business. 19. Though in the present case, the members of the petitioner association as well as the petitioners in the other writ petitions are all individuals and not companies, what matters is that the activity of leasing of properties is being carried on by them in an organised and focussed fashion and the manner of exploitation of properties constitutes regular business and commercial activity. There is thus no doubt that the individuals all appear to be engaged in the carrying on of the business activity of leasing of residential units. 20. The State in counter has also averred that all facilities in regard to the Mansion units, such as electricity and similar, are being treated and paid for on commercial basis and this has not been denied by the petitioners. Thus, it is crystal clear that the Mansions are being run as commercial and extremely viable business propositions. 21. In view of the above discussion, the challenge to the impugned Resolution and introduction of the classification Tenant-commercial is rejected. The introduction of a new classification, as Tenant Commercial is justified particularly in the light of the admitted position that the running of mansions, service apartments guest houses, hostels and other similar establishments are on commercial basis. 22. 21. In view of the above discussion, the challenge to the impugned Resolution and introduction of the classification Tenant-commercial is rejected. The introduction of a new classification, as Tenant Commercial is justified particularly in the light of the admitted position that the running of mansions, service apartments guest houses, hostels and other similar establishments are on commercial basis. 22. As observed earlier, while the introduction and the basis of the new classification is upheld, the application of the same to the cases of the individual assessees has to be established on a case-by-case basis bearing in mind the principles discussed above, that is, all factors to determine systematic exploitation of the properties including mainly, the duration for which the activity of leasing of properties is being undertaken by the owners. It is only in such cases that the classification Tenant-commercial would apply. 23. As far as the argument of retrospectivity is concerned, Section 98A of the Act relied upon by the Corporation is extracted below:- "98-A. Powers of control of State Government:- (1) Before the council passes any resolution imposing a tax or duty for the first time, it shall direct the commissioner to publish a notice in the [Official Gazette] and in the local newspaper of its intention and fix a reasonable period not being less than one month from the date of publication of such notice in the [Official Gazette] for submission of objections. The council may, after considering the objections, if any, received within the period specified, determine by resolution to levy the tax or duty. Such resolution shall specify the rate at which, the date from which and the period of levy, if any, for which such tax or duty shall be levied. (2) When the council shall have determined to levy any tax or duty for the first time or at a new rate, the commissioner shall forthwith publish a notice in the manner laid down in sub-section (1) specifying the date from which, the rate at which and the period of levy, if any, for which such tax or duty shall be levied. (3) Any resolution abolishing an existing tax or duty or reducing the rate at which any tax or duty is levied shall not be carried into effect without the sanction of the [State Government], but such sanction shall not be necessary for a resolution reducing the rate at which property tax is levied: Provided that such reduction does not contravene the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 99. (4) Where any resolution under this section has taken effect for a particular year, no proposal to alter the rates or the date fixed in such resolution so far as that year is concerned shall be taken into consideration by the council without the sanction of or a direction from the [State Government]." 24. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear to me that the statute empowers the Corporation to both, impose taxes as well as decide the period of such imposition, at its discretion. The power of retrospective levy is also, apparently, available to the Corporation. Having said so, the power to impose tax retrospectively cannot be held to be justified in all cases, particularly when such levy casts a heavy and onerous burden upon the assessee, in new and hitherto unanticipated circumstances. Normally, retrospective operation of a provision is acceptable in circumstances where the newly introduced provision is intended to be curative or to supply an obvious omission or is clarificatory. In the present case, none of the aforesaid parameters or scenarios would apply. 25. The impugned Resolution dated 28.03.2017 without doubt, imposes a substantial change in the method of classification of the properties in question and a consequent, unanticipated and heavy monetary burden. Thus, while accepting the legal proposition that the Corporation does have the power to levy tax retrospectively in appropriate cases, I am of the view that in the present cases, the levy of tax has to be only prospective. This is also specifically for the reason that the new classification has been brought into effect only by virtue of the Resolution dated 28.03.2017 and no such levy can be imposed for a period when such classification itself did not exist. 26. This is also specifically for the reason that the new classification has been brought into effect only by virtue of the Resolution dated 28.03.2017 and no such levy can be imposed for a period when such classification itself did not exist. 26. Reliance on the decision of the Full Bench Supreme Court in the case of State of Madras vs. N.K. Nataraja Mudaliar, AIR 1969 SC 147 , does not advance the case of the Corporation since this judgement only deals with the power of the State to levy taxes retrospectively, on which proposition there is no quarrel at all. 27. W.P. No. 16413 of 2017 is disposed of in the above terms. 28. As far as W.P. No. 27971 of 2017 is concerned, demand notice dated 'Nil' is set-aside. The authority concerned is directed to issue a fresh notice taking into account Resolution dated 28.03.2017 as well as G.O.Ms. No. 73 and 76, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA.IV) Department, dated 26.07.2018 and 19.07.2018 to the petitioner, seek his response to the same and pass an order of assessment after hearing the petitioner/owner, in accordance with law. 29. As far as W.P. Nos. 9838 and 8481 of 2019 are concerned, they challenge demands of Water and Sewerage Tax based on the revised property tax demand computed in line with Resolution No. 206/2017 dated 28.03.2017. In the light of the fact that the demands of property tax have themselves been set-aside, the consequential demands of water and sewerage taxes are also set-aside and will be re-done, based on the parameters adopted in the property tax assessment. 30. In fine, all the writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms and based upon the above directions. Consequently, the connected WMPs are closed with no order as to costs.