Manjula Chellur, C.J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-assessees as well as Government Pleader representing the respondents-Departments.

2. The appellants herein by virtue of an agreement between them under Annexure-A1 pooled three different portions of property belonging to them situated adjacent to each other and constructed a building consisting of seven shops and one office block apart from other amenities. It is also placed on record that under four different sale documents, Annexures-A2, A3, A4 and A5, they purchased the land upon which the building in question came to be constructed.

3. When the building tax assessment issue came up, the Department assessed the entire building as one unit and sent a demand notice as per Ext.P1. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed an appeal and Ext.P2 order dated 11.7.2000 came to be passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram rejecting the claim of the appellants opining that the building in question will not come within Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

Aggrieved by the said order, a revision came to be filed before the District Collector and the District Collector vide Ext.P3 dismissed the revision petition. Therefore, the appellants approached this Court in O.P.No.25510 of 2001. The learned single Judge, after considering the stand of the appellants as well as the respondents-authorities, placing reliance on the decision reported in Rasheedv. Tahsildar [2004(3)K.L.T.945], opined that the building in question cannot be treated as separate apartments or flats as contemplated under Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Act. Therefore, the petition came to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge which confirmed three orders of the authorities.

4. According to the appellants, apart from the judgment reported in Bhattathiripadv. Tahsildar [1994 (1)K.L.T.790], the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Lissyv. Tahsildar[2000(3)K.L.T.497] is also applicable to the facts of the present case and even otherwise factually when the plan pertaining to the building in question is perused, it clearly indicates different portions of the buildings having separate entrances with demarcation and, therefore, there was no justification to consider the entire construction as one unit to assess the building tax under the above Act. He placed reliance on Explanation 2 to contend that even commercial activity conducted in a portion of the building could be considered as a flat as opined in the Division Bench judgment of this Court and seeks for the relief of allowing the appeal with a direction to the respondents-authorities to assess the individual shop portions separately as claimed by the appellants.

5. As against this, learned Government Pleader placing reliance on the decisions reported in Thomas v. Tahsildar [2008(2)K.L.T. 934] and also Varghese v. State of Kerala [2013 (2)K.L.T.831] contends that in the light of common areas, as common amenities are enjoyed by the appellants so far as different portions of the constructions are subjected to assessment, the shops cannot be considered as independent entities and they have to be considered as a single unit. Another argument put forth by learned Government Pleader is that there has to be evidence to show that appellants have met the cost of construction jointly as contemplated under Explanation 2.

6. Learned Government Pleader as well as learned counsel appearing for the appellants have placed on record the sanctioned plan so far as the construction in question. Admittedly, this is a commercial complex put up by the appellants consisting of ground floor and first floor. In each floor, there are seven shops apart from two toilets plus office space. So far as shops are concerned, it is demarcated clearly by walls on three sides with a sh