SHANU.V.MAHTANI v. THE COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF CHENNAI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 2.11.2012CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.22471 of 20121 SHANU.V.MAHTANI [ PETITIONER ] 2 AJAY V.MAHTANI 3 VEERAJ V.MAHTANI ALL RESIDING AT 4-D, 4TH FLOOR OWNERS' COURT MONTIETH LANE, EGMORE, CHENNAI-84 NITHYA KUMARA GOVINDAN W/O.KUMARA GOVINDAN, NO.33/6 MANDAPAM ROAD KILPAUK, CHENNAI-10 Vs1 THE COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF CHENNAI RIPON BUILDINGS PARK TOWN CHENNAI-32 THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER ZONE VIII CORPORATION OF CHENNAI NO.183 EVR SALAI KILPAUK CHENNAI-10[ RESPONDENTS ]This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to theorder Z.O.VIII/R.D.C. No.R2/SPL/2012 dated 12.6.2012 passed by the2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct therespondents, their subordinates, employees, agents to sub dividethe assessment of the property and change the name of the assessmentin favour of the petitioners herein, relating to the property at JVLTowers basement area measuring 4000/48783 sq.ft. inclusive ofcommon area in the northern half, bearing Door No.117, NelsonManickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai 29. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner : Mr.Harshad P.Goklaney For respondents : Mr.C.RavichandranO R D E RHeard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.2. It has been stated that the third petitioner is the co-ownerof the property bearing Door No.117, Nelson Manickam Road,Aminjikarai, Chennai, having an undivided share in the saidproperty. The property in question is a commercial building, whichhas been purchased, under a deed of sale, dated 18.11.1987, andregistered as document No.127 of 1988, on 20.1.1988, on the file ofthe Sub-Registrar, Kodambakkam. The said property had been purchasedby a Company in the name of First in Fashions Exports PrivateLimited and by the father of the third petitioner, with equal sharesin it. 3. It had been further stated that Vashi Mangaram Mahtani thefather of petitioners 2, 3 and 4 had died, on 30.8.2010. He issurvived by the third petitioner’s mother Shanu V.Mahtani, the firstpetitioner herein, his brother Ajay V.Mahtani and his sister NithyaKumara Govindan, the second and the fourth petitioners respectively.The southern portion of the basement having an extent of 4000 sq.ft.was owned by the Company, while the northern portion of the basementof the said property was in occupation by the Company, as a tenant.All the taxes relating to the property had been paid by the Company,till the first half of the year, 2007-08. 4. It had been further stated that after the death of the thirdpetitioner's father, the property had devolved on his legal heirs.Therefore, a representation had been made to the authoritiesconcerned, for permitting the legal heirs to pay the taxes, inrespect of their shares in the property in question. The firstpetitioner had made a representation, dated 19.4.2012, requestingthe second respondent to assess the northern portion of thebasement, having an extent of 4,000 sq.ft., separately, and changethe assessment of the property in the name of the legal heirs of thepetitioner’s father, as per law. 5. It had also been stated that the third petitioner hadnothing to do with the owner of the southern portion of theproperty, which had been purchased by Zita Vijay, from the Company.There was no response to the said representation sent by the thirdpetitioner. However, the third petitioner had received a demandnotice, dated 12.6.2012, from the second respondent, to pay a sum ofRs.3,35,154/-, and a copy of the said demand had been sent to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ purchaser of the other portion of the property, namely, Zita Vijay.In such circumstances, the petitioners had preferred the presentwrit petition before this Court, under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the firstrespondent, it has been stated that the writ petition, filed by thepetitioners, is not maintainable, in view of Section 103, read withSection 106 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.Under section 103 of the said Act, the Corporation of Chennai hasgot the first charge on the property, with regard to the arrears ofthe property tax. Section 106 of the Act creates an obligation onthe transferor and the transferee of the property in question, togive notice of the transfer to the Commissioner of the Corporation.Therefore, the liability of the transferee, for the payment ofarrears of the property tax or the prior claim of the Corporation,under Section 103 of the Act, would not be affected. Therefore, thepetitioners are bound to pay the entire arrears of the property tax,in respect of 8,134 sq.ft., in the basement area of the premises inquestion. Any request for sub division of the area would beconsidered only on the payment of the entire arrears of the propertytax, by the petitioners. The writ petition filed by the petitionersis liable to be dismissed for non-jointer of the necessary party,namely, First in Fashions Exports Private Limited. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the recordsavailable, it is found that the property tax had been assessed, as asingle assessment, in the name of First in Fashions Exports PrivateLimited, for the entire area of the premises in question. Anysubsequent changes in the ownership of the property in questionought to have been brought to the notice of the authoritiesconcerned, at the relevant point of time. The second respondent hadissued the impugned letter, dated 12.6.2012, calling upon the thirdpetitioner to pay the entire arrears of tax, only in view of thefact that the entire basement area of the property in question wasunder the single assessment made in the name of First in FashionsExports Private Limited. 8. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate todirect the petitioners to file a detailed representation to thefirst respondent, along with the relevant documents in support oftheir contentions, within a period of two weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such arepresentation, the first respondent shall consider the same andpass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance withlaw, considering the claims of the petitioners, after giving anopportunity of personal hearing to them. In case of complicatedissues arising for the consideration of the first respondent, duringthe enquiry to be conducted by him, the petitioners may be directed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to resolve such disputes before an appropriate civil forum.However, if the issues arising for the consideration of the firstrespondent could be resolved, based on the documents furnished bythe petitioners, during the enquiry, it would be open to the firstrespondent to resolve such issues before fresh demands are made forthe payment of the property tax, in respect of the property inquestion. The first respondent shall consider the claims of thepetitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon, as directed by thisCourt, as expeditiously as possible. It is also made clear that nocoercive steps should be taken by the respondents, in respect of theproperty tax said to be payable by them, till final orders arepassed by the first respondent, as directed by this Court. The writpetition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar.lanTo:1 THE COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF CHENNAI RIPON BUILDINGS PARK TOWN CHENNAI-32 THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER ZONE VIII CORPORATION OF CHENNAI NO.183 EVR SALAI KILPAUK CHENNAI-101 cc to Mr.C. Ravichandran, sr. 680902 ccs to Mr.Harshad P. Goklaney, Advocate, Sr. 68377Writ Petition No.22471 of 2012BS (CO)pmk.13.12.2012