IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 OP.No. 17975 OF 2001(M) PETITIONER: 1. DANANJAY D DEO, D.V. DEO AND SONS, 40/1879, GCDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.S. SALAHDIN, TIME ZONE, 40/1876, GCDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM. 3. BAMA SREEDHARAN, 40/1603, GCDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM. 4. P.A. RASHEED, BHARATH TIMES, 40/1874, GROUND FLOOR, GCDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENTS: 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM. 3. SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ASHOK M.CHERIAN,SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R1 R2 BY ADV. SRI. M.V. JOSEPH THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 17975/2001 ORDER ON CMP NO.28903/2001 IN O.P. 17975 // DISMISSED // 11.7.2008. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 RENT RECEIPT DATED 12.6.2001 TO 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2 RENT RECEIPT DATED 23.5.2001 TO 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3 RENT RECEIPT DATED 8.6.2001 TO 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P4 RENT RECEIPT DATED 30.5.2001 TO 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P5 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P6 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P7 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED TO 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P8 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED TO 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P9 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 1.6.2001 SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P10 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 4.6.2001 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P11 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 1.6.2001 SUBMITTED BY 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P12 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 1.6.2001 SUBMITTED BY 4TH PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = O.P. NO. 17975 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are four in number. They are lessees of buildings owned by the Greater Cochin Development Authority, situated in GCDA Complex, Marine Drive, Ernakulam. They were served with notices of demand by the Corporation of Cochin, for payment of property tax for the periods varying between 1989-90 to 2001-02, as evidenced by Exts.P5 to P8 produced in this writ petition. On receipt of demand notices, they submitted their objections to the Corporation stating that they are only lessees of the buildings and they are not bound to pay any property tax. They also submits that some of the demands are barred by limitation. Apprehending coercive action, they approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 2. While admitting the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay of further proceedings on condition to pay 50% of the amount demanded. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that some of the petitioners have complied with the said condition and remitted 50% of the amount as directed. The Corporation of Cochin has not filed any counter affidavit. 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for O.P. 17975/2001 :2: the petitioner. It is fairly submitted that the liability as such of a lessee to pay property tax cannot be disputed in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Yedunath v. Vadakara Municipality (2003(3) KLT 684). Admittedly under Section 237 of the Municipalities Act, there will be a first charge on the property in respect of which property tax is due. Further, even if ultimately the primary liability to discharge property tax is on the lessor, which liability is called upon to be discharged by the lessee, then necessarily the lessee can claim the amount from the lessor after payment to the statutory authority. However, the question as to whether any of the demand is barred by limitation and subsequently whether any amount has been paid by the Greater Cochin Development Authority are matters on which no counter affidavit is filed by the respondent. In the circumstances, I direct that in case 50% of the amount as demanded is paid by the petitioners/ tenants in compliance of the earlier direction, further proceedings to recover the amount, if not already recovered, will be kept in abeyance until they are given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) knc/-