MOHAMMAD ABDUL SHUKOOR Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Notice of demand issued on 10-12-1997 has been challenged in this writ petition which is purported to have been issued under Section 268 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955. Facts are not at dispute. It is contended by the petitioner that he is tenant of the property and in terms of the lease agreement with his landlord, the landlord was supposed to pay all the taxes but inspite of that the impugned notice has been issued against the petitioner. It was also complained that the respondents were contemplating to issue a warrant of distress against the movable properties of the petitioner and not the immovable property of the landlord.

(2.) Counter has been filed. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the landlord as well as the tenant are liable to pay the tax. Since the petitioner was occupier of the property in question at relevant point of time therefore he is liable to pay the tax.

(3.) Now, the only question is whether an occupier is liable to pay the tax under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act or the landlord alone has to pay the tax and in case the occupier who is not the landlord is liable to pay the tax in what circumstances and in what manner. Section 204 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act is reproduced below: