EJMAN Vs. KASARAGOD MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the cases were heard together as common questions of law are raised, as also the parties are same. This common judgment is being passed in both the cases.

(2.) IN O. P. No. 6846 of 1988, the petitioners prayed for issue of a direction to quash Exts. P7 and P11 orders of respondents 1 and 2, who are respectively the Kasaragod Municipality represented by its Commissioner and the Kasaragod Municipal Council, represented by its Chairman. By Ext. P7 order, the respondents assessed five buildings to property tax. By Ext. P11 order, the appeal committee of the Municipal Council, Kasaragod dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext. P7 assessment order. IN O. P. No. 7564 of 1988, the petitioners prayed for issue of a direction to quash Exts. P1, P2, P4 and P6 notices issued by the same respondents by which two buildings belonging to the petitioners were assessed to property tax. The petitioners have contented that although they have completed the construction of the buildings in question, yet before it was occupied or let out to tenants, the respondents levied the tax illegally.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, in this case, construction of the building has been completed. Property tax was assessed before it was let out to tenants and during the period when it remained unlet. There is also no dispute that the buildings are located within the limits of Kasaragod Municipality and they are liable to be taxed under the Municipalities Act. As said above, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the buildings are deemed to have been unoccupied if they are not let out or if the owner himself does not live in it.