IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 659 of 2008() --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2454/2008 Dated 14/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- 1. DR.SUSY ELIAS, SKIN CARE CENTRE ELIAS CHAMBERS, MARKET CANAL ROAD ERNAKULAM. 2. SMT. MARIAM ELIAS,W/O. LATE DR.BASIL ELIAS,KOTTECANAL ROAD, NEAR LISIE HOSPITAL ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT COCHIN,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 3. THE DISTRICT COLELCTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.A. NO:659 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st February, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the building tax assessment completed for a five storied building owned by the petitioners together. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and Govt. Pleader for the respondents. 2. The only provision for assessment of single building as different building units is covered by explanation 2 of Section 2 (e) of Kerala Building Tax Act which provides for assessment of an apartment building constructed by joint owners sharing the cost. The building involved in this case is a commercial building with different rooms and appellants claim to be owners of the rooms separately. In the first place Govt. Pleader raised objection that the shop rooms in a building cannot be said to be separate apartments to be assessed under explanation 2 to Section 2(e). Further all the authorities including the District Collector found that document registered is on an insufficiently W.A.659/2008 2 stamped paper for construction. No evidence was produced to prove that the building was constructed by sharing the cost among the co-owners. Besides making the claim, appellants have not proved with evidence that the building is of the type falling under explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Act. We find that building is a commercial building with shop rooms and office space each of which cannot be treated as a separate apartment or flat. Further the building tax assessed for a building with above 28,000 sq. ft is only a little over of Rs.1.5 lakhs. We do not find any merit in the writ appeal. Consequently the same is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj W.A.659/2008 3