W. KANNIAH LAL BY HIS DULY CONSTITUTED AGENT W. NARASINGH PRASAD Vs. THE CORPORATION OF MADRAS BY ITS COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR a long period the plaintiff has been the owner of a market at Mylapore. In the preceding year with which we are concerned, he leased the market to a contractor who, under the terms of the lease, paid him a fixed sum of Rs. 225 a month, the contractor being allowed to collect what he could from the various stall holders in the market. In 1936 there was an amendment to the City Municipal Act, whereby the Municipality was entitled to demand as licence fee 15 per cent. of the gross income of the owner from the market in the preceding year. Purporting to act under this section, the Revenue Officer of the Corporation demanded of the plaintiff a licence fee equal to 15 per cent. of the gross income from the market, although the plaintiff himself received a sum of only Rs. 225 a month. Criminal proceedings were instituted; and in order to settle the question that there arose the plaintiff filed the present suit for a declaration that the licence fee payable by him was only Rs. 405. The suit was dismissed.

(2.) THE argument on behalf of the plaintiff is that he was the owner of the market and that since the section referred to the gross income of the owner from the market, the Revenue Officer of the Corporation was not entitled to ignore the words " of the owner " and to charge a licence fee of 15 per cent. of the gross income from the market. Dealing with that point the learned Additional Judge of the City Civil Court said:

(3.) IT is argued that if this meaning be placed on the word " owner " in Section 304 -B the result would be that the word " owner " must be interpreted in Section 304 in one way and in Section 304 -B in another; for the person who applied for the renewal of the licence was not the contractor and the plaintiff, but the plaintiff alone. I do not think that this is any real objection to the interpretation of Section 304 -B given above. Section 304 -B refers to the state of affairs in the preceding year. Supposing, for example, that in the previous year there were two joint owners and each of them received a half of the gross income from the market and in the year in which the new licence was sought, only one of the two joint owners applied; could it then be said that because that owner had received only a half of the gross income from the market, that he should receive a renewal of the licence for the whale market on the payment of a fee calculated on half the income? Clearly not. The word " owner " in Section 304 must be taken to refer to the person who is conducting the market in the year in question, while the word " owner" in Section 304 -B refers to the owner in the preceding year.