M S BHOPSHETTI Vs. B V BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the City Municipality of Dhulia against the decree of the District Judge in appeal dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation. The defendant is the honorary secretary of an institution called Rajwade Sanshodhan Mandal at Dhulia which owned two buildings in Dhulia City. According to the plaintiff-Municipality those buildings were liable to the Municipal house-tax and bills were sent for the two years 1931-32 and 1932-33. The defendant's case was that they were not liable as they belonged to a public institution. He, therefore, appealed to the Bench Magistrates under Section 110 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act. The Magistrates held on April 29, 1933, that the buildings were not liable to house-tax and directed a refund of the amount. Thereupon the present suit was filed by the Municipality on November 27, 1934, for a declaration that the decision of the Magistrates' Court was null and void and that the property was liable to house-tax and for other consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE defendant contended that the Municipality was not entitled to levy the tax inasmuch as the defendant body was a public institution and was therefore exempt from Municipal taxation. It was further contended that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit as the decision of the Bench Magistrates that they were not liable to taxation was final. He also pleaded the bar of limitation on the ground that the suit ought to have been filed within one year from the date of the Magistrates' decision.

(3.) THE appellant's case is that the suit is not governed by Article 14 inasmuch as the order of the Bench Magistrates was not an order of an officer of Government falling under Article 14 THE view of the learned Judge was that the order of the Bench Magistrates was an order of an officer of Government in his official capacity and that it must be set aside before the civil Court can declare that the buildings were liable to Municipal taxation.