THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No. 272 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) This writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. The petitioners assert to be the tenants of premises bearing D.No. 1-3-1039/4, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. The petitioners are continuing in tenancy after the death of the original tenant i.e. the 1st petitioner’s father late Mohd Shabuddin. The premises is owned by Sri.Mudikonda Shankararadhya Mutt. There was a dispute with regard to the tenancy and eviction of the petitioners was ordered under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987. The petitioners assert to have filed W.P.No. 9796 of 2009 before this court wherein a stay interdicting the petitioners’ eviction is said to have been passed. The 1st respondent Municipal Corporation issued the impugned notice dt. 14.12.2010 under Section 276 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 1,14,760/- towards property tax since the landlord Mutt has not paid the tax to the 1st respondent despite several demands. The singular case of the petitioners is that the notice was issued at the instance of the landlord and since they are the mere tenants there is no liability to pay the property tax due from the landlord. To the extent relevant and material, Section 276 of the 1955 Act reads as under: 276 When occupier may held liable for payment of property tax:-(1) If the sum due on account of any property tax remains unpaid after a bill for the same has been duly served on the person primarily liable for the payment thereof and the said person be not the occupier for the time being of the premises in respect of which the tax is due, the Commissioner may serve a bill for the amount on the occupier of the said premises, or, if there are two or more occupiers thereof, may serve bill on each of them for such portion of the same due as bears to the whole amount due the same ratio which the rent paid by such occupier bears to the aggregate amount of rent paid by them both or in respect of the said premises. (2) If the occupier or any of the occupiers fails within 30 days from the service on any such bill to pay the amount therein claimed, the said amount may be recovered from him in accordance with the foregoing provision. From the above provision, it is clear that if the landlord fails to pay the property tax due and notice had been issued to the person primarily liable for the payment, the occupier of the property may be called upon to pay the property tax due. In the light of the statutory provision, the impugned notice dt. 14.12.2010 issued by the 1st respondent suffers from no infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is without merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _______________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J 20.09.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No. 272 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Dt.20.09.2011.