These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned notices dated 17.11.2016 issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Trade Licence, Zone V, Corporation of Chennai, the third respondent herein to the landlady demanding arrears of property tax.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. It is seen that some of the petitioners, while carrying on their business of selling car accessories in the respective shop premises let out by the landlady, have filed civil suits in O.S.Nos.2434 to 2436 & 2438 of 2015 on the file of the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for grant of permanent injunction against one Mr.Raj Babu by impleading the Assistant Engineer, CEDC/Central, TANGEDCO, G.P.Road Section. During the pendency of the same, they have also moved I.A.Nos.6567 to 6569 & 6573 of 2015 and the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has also granted ad-interim injunction in their favour not to disconnect the electricity service connection. This apart, when there was a refusal to accept the rent by Mr.Raj Babu on behalf of the landlady, they also filed R.C.O.P.Nos.1786 of 2015 etc., before the learned XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai for depositing the rent in respect of the tenanted premises and they are pending. In the meanwhile, the respondent-Corporation had issued notices on 2.11.2016, invoking the power conferred under Section 379-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, demanding the arrears of property tax, since the landlady had failed to pay the same. On receipt of the same, it is stated that the petitioners, after collecting arrears of property tax from other tenants, have paid 25% thereof. However, 75% of the balance arrears of property tax has not been till date paid. Therefore the third respondent has issued the impugned demand notices.
4. But this Court hardly finds any justification to interfere with the impugned notices. The reason is that when the landlady has not cleared the arrears of property tax payable to the Chennai Corporation, the petitioners, being the occupiers of the tenanted premises, to carry on their business, should have ensured the payment of the property tax through the landlady. Without doing so, the petitioners cannot come to this Court challenging the impugned demand notices. Moreover, when the notices have been addressed to the landlady, they have been challenged by the tenants. Therefore, this Court finds no locus standi for the petitioners to challenge the correctness of the impugned demand notices. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.3589 to 3595 of 2017 are also dismissed. No costs.