KHAN BAHADUR CHOWAKKARAN KELOTH MAMMAD KEYI SAHIB, KARNAVAN AND MANAGER OF HIS TARWAD AT TELLICHERRY Vs. THE CANNANORE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THROUGH COMMISSIONER (EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY), MUNICIPAL OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the owner of a house in Cannanore. At all times material it was leased to the Cannanore Municipal Council for the purpose of a school. Up to the 29th August, 1939, the building was exempt from property tax by reason of Section 83(1)(c) of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. On that date, the section was amended by the Madras City Municipal, District Municipalities and Local Boards (Amendment) Act, 1939 (Madras Act XXI of 1939) which inserted a proviso to the effect that nothing contained in Clauses (a) (c) and (e) of Section 83 should be deemed to exempt from property tax a building for which rent was payable by the person or persons using it for the purposes referred to in these clauses.

(2.) AS the house had become liable to assessment, for the purpose of Municipal taxation, the Cannanore Municipal Council amended the assessment register by inserting therein an entry with regard to this house, and on the 2nd October, 1939, it issued a demand notice for the payment of the tax in respect of the half -year commencing 1st April, 1939. The appellant considered that this demand was unlawful and consequently he filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Cannanore for declaration that the levy was illegal and for the recovery of the sum exacted with interest. The amount was Rs. 35 -1 -8. The Municipal Council raised a plea of jurisdiction. The District Munsiff held that the tax was leviable, but he considered that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff had not taken advantage of the remedy provided in the rules framed under the Act for redress in matters of taxation. On appeal the Subordinate Judge agreed with the District Munsiff that the tax was leviable in respect of the half -year commencing the 1st April, 1939, but he refrained from entering upon a discussion of the question of the maintainability of the suit. The appellant then appealed to this Court. His appeal was heard by Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., who agreed with the Courts below on the question of the validity of the demand. The learned Judge also considered the question of the maintainability of the suit and decided it against the appellant. This appeal is from the judgment of Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.

(3.) AS we have mentioned, the assessment register was amended on the 30th September, 1939, by the inclusion of an entry with regard to this house. The executive authority had then the right to make this amendment and by virtue of Sub -rule (2), the amendment had to be regarded as having taken effect on the first day of the half -year. This provision is mandatory. The proviso to Sub -rule (2) does not apply, because no notice of demand for that half -year had previously been issued. It follows that the demand made by the Municipal Council was valid.