ORDER : 1. This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 questioning the order dated 17.07.2010 passed in M.A.No.36/2007 by the learned I-Additional District Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubli, dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. 2. The respondent which is Hubli-Dharwad Muncipal Corporation issued tax demand notice upon one Sri. V. S. Sadhunavar calling upon him to pay tax which was liable to be paid for the premises Nos.F-23, F-24, F-25 and L-31 of Laxmi complex, Hubli in the District of Dhaward. It is alleged that the present petitioner had paid the said tax demanded upon Sri. V. S. Sadhunavar. Upon paying such taxes, she preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge in M.A.No.36/2007 seeking following reliefs: (a) The respondent may be directed to refund Rs.1,11,695-00 with damages at the rate of 2% p.m. on the said amounts from 1st April 2007 on the date of refund of the said amount. (b) The Respondent be further directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.27,523-00 collected from the applicant, or so much of the excess amount which would be even more that may be determined by the Hon’ble Court in the proceeding. (c) The Respondent may be directed to treat the ratable value of the premises fixed prior to 2000-2001 as the basis for the years 20012002 to 2006-2007. (d) It may be held that the applicant is not liable to pay the penalty in the circumstances of the case in respect of the alleged arrears of tax. (e) It may be held that applicant is not the defaulter. (f) It may be held that the applicant at any rate is not liable to pay the alleged arrears of tax for the period prior to 2001-2002. (g) The Respondent be ordered to pay the costs of the applicant. (h) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass such reliefs as deemed fir in order to meet the ends of justice. 3. In sum and substance, what she had sought in the appeal before the learned District Judge was refund of the entire tax that was said to be paid by her on the account of Sri. V. S. Sadhunavar. 4. In support of this petition, learned counsel Sri. 3. In sum and substance, what she had sought in the appeal before the learned District Judge was refund of the entire tax that was said to be paid by her on the account of Sri. V. S. Sadhunavar. 4. In support of this petition, learned counsel Sri. D.H.Pastay, appearing for the petitioner, submitted before me that the petitioner is neither the owner of the premises, nor the lessee or the sub-lessee of the same. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, she is in permissive possession of the premises under the owner Sri. V. S. Sadhunavar. He submits that the tax demand notice was issued 113(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act,1976 (for short “the Act”) and in compliance with the same the tax was paid. He further submitted that the learned District Judge has not appreciated the above aspects and he has erroneously dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel Sri. G. I. Gachchinmath, appearing for the respondent-corporation, per contra, submitted that the learned District Judge was entirely right and justified in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. He draws my attention to Clause (b) of Sub-section 1 to Section 112 of the Act and submits that the petitioner whose nature of possession is said to be permissive from the owner is not liable to pay the tax and even as per the showing of the appellant, the tax demand was upon the owner of the premises Sri. V. S. Sadhunavar and if the petitioner before this Court had paid the tax amount on the account of the owner, her claim should be as against the owner and appeal at her instance questioning the tax demand or collection of the tax is not at all maintainable. He therefore, submits that the petition before this Court is liable to be dismissed. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the property in respect of which tax demand was made by the respondent-corporation is premises and it is not a land within the meaning of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. It is also not in dispute that the premises do not belong to either the Government or the Corporation and it is not held from the said authorities. The premises in question is said to be F-23, F-24, F-25 and L-31 of Laxmi Complex, Hubli of Dharwad District. It is also not in dispute that the premises do not belong to either the Government or the Corporation and it is not held from the said authorities. The premises in question is said to be F-23, F-24, F-25 and L-31 of Laxmi Complex, Hubli of Dharwad District. There is also no dispute about the fact that the said premises are owned by one Sri. V. S. Sadhunavar. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein is neither the owner of the premises, nor the lessee or the tenant and not even the sub-tenant of the premises. He characterized the nature of the possession of the petitioner as one of the permissive occupier. Primary liability to pay the tax concerning a commercial premises owned by a private owner is spelled out from Section 112 of the Act. Section 112 of the Act insofar as same is relevant for the present purpose, reads as follows: “112. Property tax from whom and when payable. -(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the property tax shall be primarily payable as follows, namely:- (a) if the premises are held immediately from Government or the corporation, from the actual occupier thereof: [Provided that the property tax due in respect of premises owned by the Government and occupied by any person on payment of rent, shall be payable by the Government: Provided further that no property tax shall be payable in respect of premises owned by the Corporation and occupied by any person on payment of rent.] (b) if the premises are not so held,- (i) from the lessor if the premises are let; (ii) from the superior lessor is the premises are sub-let; (iii) from the person in whom the right to let the premises vests, if they are unlet. (2) If any land has been let for any term exceeding one year to a tenant and such tenant or any person deriving title howsoever from such tenant has built upon the land, the property tax assessed upon the said land and upon the building erected thereon shall be primarily payable by the said tenant or such person whether or not the premises be in the occupation of the said tenant or the person. (3) The property tax shall be paid by the person primarily liable within [ninety days] after the commencement of every [year]” (Emphasis supplied) 7. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Section 112(A)(1) and Section 113(1) of the Act, it is necessary to refer to the same also and they read as follows: “112A. Assessment of property tax. -(1) Every owner or occupier who is liable to pay property tax under this Act, shall every year submit to the Commissioner or the officer authorised by him in this behalf (hereinafter referred to as authorised officer) a return in such form within such period and in such manner as specified in schedule III. Provided that if the owner or occupier who is liable to pay tax files return and also pays tax which is due, within one month from the date of commencement of the year, he shall be allowed a rebate of five percent on the tax payable by him.” “113. Demand for payment of property tax and appeal against such demand. -(1) If the property tax including penalty leviable under sub-section (5) of section 112A is not paid after it has been become due, the corporation may cause to be served upon the person liable for payment of the same a notice of demand in such form as may be prescribed.” 8. From a reading of the above, it is apparent that these provisions form part of a scheme regarding the liability to pay taxes, assessment of the same and the respondent-corporation making a demand for payment of the same. They are not independent of each other. It is further evident that the primary liability to pay tax in respect of commercial premises privately owned is upon the owner of the premises (owner or lessor of the premises) or the superior lessor or person in whom a right to let the premises is vested if they are un-let. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is not the case of the petitioner that she is either the lessor or the superior lessor or that she is the person in whom a right to let the premises in question is vested. On the other hand, the specific case of the petitioner is that the tax demand was made upon the undisputed owner of the premises namely Sri. On the other hand, the specific case of the petitioner is that the tax demand was made upon the undisputed owner of the premises namely Sri. V. S. Sadhunavar and on such demand having been made, she had paid the taxes. Sub-section 3 of Section 113, under which this appeal is preferred before the learned District Judge, reads as follows: “[113. Demand for payment of property tax and appeal against such demand. – (1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 61A or 62 or 444, any person disputing the claim in the notice of demand served under sub-section (1), may within thirty days after the service of such notice, appeal in such manner subject to such conditions and to such authority as may be prescribed.]” 9. In the above provision “any person disputing the claim” is referable only to the persons who are primarily liable to pay the tax as adumbrated under sub-clause (b) of Sub-section(1) of Section 112 of the Act and none else. This view of mine receives support from the wordings employed in Section 113(3) of the Act to the effect “…, any person disputing the claim in the notice of demand served under sub-section (1)….” Sub-section (1) of Section 113 of the Act contemplates that “…., the corporation may cause to be served upon the person liable for payment of the same a notice of demand ……’’. Admittedly the notice of demand was addressed to V.S. Sadhunavar, the owner of the premises who is unquestionably liable to pay taxes under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 112 of the Act. If, therefore, petitioner has paid the taxes, she has done so not on her own account and that is for and on behalf of the owner V.S. Sadhunavar. The present petitioner on the plain terms of Section 112(1)(b) of the Act, does not come within the ambit of “any person disputing the claim” in view of the admitted position that she is not any one of the persons mentioned in the said provision, namely, Section 113(3) of the Act, who are liable to pay the tax under the Act and therefore, the appeal at the instance of the present petitioner who had paid the tax on behalf and towards the account of one Sri. V. S. Sadhunavar, the owner of the premises, is not at all maintainable as rightly held by the learned District Judge in the impugned order. In that view of the matter, there is absolutely no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned District Judge and therefore, there is no merit in the present petition and same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following: ORDER : The above petition is dismissed.