Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding single assessment of 13 flats made up into 12 numbers as a single building in a flat complex. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Government Pleader for respondents.

2. The facts leading to the controversy are the following. The appellant along with his two sisters, the joint owners of 54 cents of land, gave it to a builder under an agreement for development and construction of a residential flat complex comprising of 58 flats. As consideration for the grant, under the agreement Builder was bound to give appellant 13 flats made up into 12 numbers by combining two flats together for appellant's residence and two each flats to appellant's sisters and remaining 41 flats were allowed to be sold by the Builder to customers. When separate returns were filed for assessment of each and every flat separately, the Tahsildar assessed the 12 flats including one combination of two flats as a single building and the two flats each of appellant's sisters were also clubbed together and assessed as a single building. However, so far as the 41 flats built and sold by the builder are concerned, all are assessed as separate units by applying Explanation (2) to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act (hereinafter called "the Act"). The appellant questioned the single assessment of 12 flats in his name as according to him, these flats are also entitled to be assessed as individual units by applying the very same Explanation. However, this was rejected by the Assessing Officer as well as in appeal by the R.D.O. against which Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge, however, by following Full Bench judgment of this court in DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. SREEKUMARI KUNJAMMA reported in 2011(1) KLT 248 (F.B.) rejected the claim against which Writ Appeal is filed.

3. Counsel for the appellant in the first place submitted that Full Bench decision has no application because that was a case pertaining to a two storied building with two apartments owned by the same person, the assessment of which as a single unit was upheld by the Full Bench by declaring that Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) does not apply to a building with two flats owned by the same person. There can be no controversy on this because the building, the assessment of which was considered by the Full Bench is only a two storied building and the two flats are owned by the very same person. On the other hand, in this case the apartment complex is assessed as 41 + 3 = 44 flats by applying Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Act. So much so, the only question that remains to be considered is whether the very same Explanation applied by the Assessing Officer for assessment of the flats other than those belonging to appellant and his sisters should apply for assessment of their flats also. Since situation of this kind will repeatedly arise, we feel for the guidance of Assessing officers we should explain the scope of Explanation with reference to buildings of the type referred to herein. Accordingly we extract hereunder the definition clause of "building" with Explanation 2:

"S.2(e) "building" means a house, out-house, garage, or any other structure, or part thereof, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, metal or other material, but does not include any portable shelter or any shed constructed principally of mud, bamboos, leaves, grass or thatch or a latrine which is not attached to the main structure.

..............

Explanation 2. Where a building consists of different apartments or flats owned by different persons and the cost of construction of the building was met by all such persons jointly, each such apartment or flat shall be deemed to be a separate building."

What is clear from Section 2(e) is that "building" is given a very wide meaning taking in it, even a part of the building or even a structure. In view of the wide meaning given to the definition cl