The main legal point established is that under the Kerala Municipalities Act, property tax can be levied on completed buildings upon notice of completion, irrespective of occupation by a tenant or the owner.

Patnaik, J.

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. When the above two Original Petitions came up before a learned single judge, the petitioners contended that even when the construction of the building is over it is not liable to be assessed for property tax until it is occupied. The demand of property tax for the period before its occupation is without any authority of law. In support of their contentions reliance was placed on a decision of a learned single judge of this Court in M.C. George v. Moovattupuzha Municipality (1975 KLT 380). In paragraph 7 of the judgment, the learned single judge held as follows:

"In the case of a building which is not completed and not occupied, there cannot be an annual value because it is not rateable. Moreover, the tax is levied on a building, which is occupied. There is provision in S.105 of the Act (Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960) to give remission of tax in respect of a building already assessed to property tax when it falls vacant and unlet for thirty or more consecutive days in any half year. So. occupation is an essential pre-requisite for a building to attract tax under S.100. But once assessed, that will continue and only S.105 will be available. It is also admitted in Ext. P5 that the building was not occupied. So, the assessment in question cannot be sustained".

After considering various provisions of the law on the point, the learned single judge held that going by the provisions contained in S.99 of the Kerala Municipalities Act (for short'the act), it is possible to contend that even a building, which was not occupied, is liable to be taxed. The learned single judge, therefore, referred the question raised in these O.Ps. namely, whether the Municipality is entitled to levy or collect property tax in respect of an unoccupied building, for a decision by a Division Bench. This is how the matters came up before us.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. It is contended that it is only after the petitioners gave the completion notice regarding the buildings; the respondents levied property tax as per the provisions of the Municipalities Act. It is further contended that the position regarding the assessment of newly completed buildings which are ready and fit for occupation, but which have not yet been occupied or let out yet has been dealt with exhaustively in the decision reported in Nataraja Gowder v. Municipal Council, Palghat (1976 KLT 251). It has been held that in such cases, the Municipality is competent to assess property tax taking into account the gross rental value, which the landlord may realise if the building had been let out at the time of assessment. The case reported in George's case (1975 KLT 380) has no application in these cases, as the building involved in that case was not completed nor fit to be occupied when the tax was assessed. Thus, the contention of the respondents is that as soon as the