The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of the respondent, which rejects their contention for assessment of the building as separate units instead of a single unit for the purpose of Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. It is seen from a perusal of Ext.P5 order that the issue has been found against the petitioners for the sole reason that the only document, that was submitted by the petitioners to support their contention that the building consisted of different apartments, owned by different persons and that the cost of construction of the building was met by all the persons jointly, was an unregistered family agreement. In other words, it is apparent from Ext.P5 that the petitioners did not produce any material to show that the cost of construction of the building was met by all the persons jointly. In such a scenario, I do not think that the stand taken by the respondent in Ext.P5 order can be said to be vitiated, so as to render it illegal. No grounds are made out for interference with said order and hence this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE lsn