IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.28277 OF 2010 DATED:15.11.2010 Between: M/s. S.V.R. Communications Shop No.9, Door No.20-1-2, Mummidi Complex, Main Road Kakinada, East Godavari District Rep. by its Proprietor – Kancherla Venkata Ayyanna Babu S/o.Satyanarayana … Petitioner And Kakinada Municipal Corporation Kakinada, rep. by its Commissioner and others … Respondents … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.28277 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri S. Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent – Municipal Corporation. Though several contentions have been canvassed in this writ petition but, however, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri M. Vidyasagar, would submit that as a tenant the writ petitioner is only obligated to pay the monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the premises owner and the first respondent – Municipal Corporation has raised a demand of more than Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) as property tax dues. No tenant is liable to pay property tax. It is the owner of the premises who shall pay the property tax to the local Municipal Corporation but, however, since the owner has committed the default, the writ petitioner, though a tenant, is willing to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each month by a specified date, say, 15th of each month, and obtain a receipt from the Corporation. The apprehension of the writ petitioner, as aired by Sri Vidyasagar, is that the first respondent – Municipal Corporation may not accept payment of Rs.5,000/- from the writ petitioner, as the tax dues run into several lakhs of rupees. He would in fact submit that sufficient amount was lying to the credit of a civil suit to which the first respondent – Municipal Corporation is also a party and it could have enforced its right and lien against the said money for collection and appropriation towards property tax dues. Be that as it may, if the writ petitioner offers to pay each month a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the first respondent – Municipal Corporation towards the arrears of property tax dues, the first respondent may accept the same and it may not take coercive measures to prevent the writ petitioner from putting to commercial use the premises under his occupation. It is also open to the writ petitioner to bring it to the notice of the Civil Court that he has been paying up the monthly rent amount for liquidating the property tax dues for use of the premises. The first respondent – Municipal Corporation will entertain such a representation/request from the writ petitioner and take appropriate steps for receiving the deposit that the petitioner might make, instead of taking coercive measures against him. The first respondent – Municipal Corporation may proceed against the owner of the premises and realize the tax dues. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. _________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 15.11.2010 bnr Note: Operative portion of the order may be communicated by WIRE at party’s cost. (B.O) bnr