AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By an order dated November 22, 2018, Corporation was directed to apportion the property tax in accordance with law amongst the occupiers of the premises concerned.
Learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation relies upon a writing dated December 11,2018, which, apportions liability of the occupants of the premises with regard to property tax.
It is the contention of the respondent no. 6, that by virtue of an agreement between the landlord and the respondent no. 6, it had vacated the premises on May 4, 2018 and that, all arrear tax up to the date of the respondent no. 6 vacating such premises is to borne by the landlord. Such contention is not disputed by the petitioner who is the landlord.
In such circumstances, Corporation is at liberty to realise the sum apportioned as against respondent no. 6 on account of property tax in accordance with law, from the petitioner.
Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents no. 4 and 8 submits that, similar agreement exist between the respondent no. 4 and 8 on one part and the landlord on the other.
However, both the learned Advocates are unable to produce copies of such agreements. The landlord, being the petitioner, denies any such arrangement.
In such circumstances, Corporation is at liberty to realise the property tax as apportioned as against respondent nos. 4 and 8 in accordance with law, from the respondent nos. 4 and 8. It is open to the respondent nos. 4 and 8 to have the sum adjusted against the petitioner if any of them are in a position to substantiate that, such an arrangement exists, before the appropriate forum.
Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 5 submits that, there is a suit for eviction. His client is depositing the rent in such suit. He points out that, the writing dated December 11, 2018 does not take into action the respondent no.5, so far as the apportionment is concerned.
Learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation points out, that serial no. 5 in the writing dated December 11, 2018 is the respondent no. 5 in the present writ petition. The typographical error in the writing dated December 11, 2018 be ignored.
It appears from writing dated December 11, 2018 that, Corporation considered the respondent no. 5 to be an occupant of the portion of the first floor of the premises concerned and apportioned the property tax liability of the respondent no. 5 as on December 11,2018.
It is open to the respondent no. 5 to pay the property tax as apportioned in writing dated December 11, 2018 without prejudice to its rights and contention in the pending eviction suit. It is also open to the Corporation to recover the apportioned tax from respondent no. 5, in accordance with law, if such apportioned property tax is not paid within four weeks from date.
Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 9 submits that, there is a suit pending for a recovery of possession. According to the respondent no. 9, the rent is inclusive of property tax. Moreover, the respondent no. 9 is entitled to challenge the apportionment.
No doubt the respondent no. 9 is entitled to challenge the apportionment done by the Corporation. However, there cannot be a property tax holiday. The respondent no. 9 is obliged to pay the apportioned value of the property tax for the area that it occupies in the premises concerned. Occupation of the premises by the respondent no. 9 is an admitted fact. Its liability to pay property tax flows out of statute. There may or may not be error in the apportionment of the liability on account of property tax so far as respondent no. 9 is concerned. The same can be looked at in an appropriate forum. But for now, the respondent no. 9 cannot take the plea of not paying any property tax because it prefers to have such apportionment challenged. Nothing is on record to suggest that, the apportionment done is incorrect.
In such circumstances, Corporation is at liberty to realise the apportioned value of the property tax from respondent no. 9, in accordance with law, if such apportioned value is not paid within a fortnight from date. The payment made by the respondent no. 9 will be without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the pending suit. The pending suit does not say, that respondent no. 9 is immune from payment of property tax nor does the suit say that the landlord is to bear the property tax.
List the writ petition on January 10, 2019 when the Corporation will inform the Court as to the status of realisation of the property tax in respect of the premises concerned.