PANDARA SANNADHI, TIRUVANNAMALAI ADHINAM BY TRUSTEE SRIDEIVASIGAMANI PONNAMBALA DESIGAR Vs. CORPORATION OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three appeals filed against the decrees of the Additional City Civil Judge in O.S. Nos. 1103, 1653 and 1662 of 1938. A common judgment was delivered by the trial Court and the decision in all the three cases depends upon the question whether the building in each suit is a choultry and therefore exempted under Section 101 (b) of the City Municipal Act. The exemption was claimed on the wording of the Amending Act X of 1936. The provision exempts the following buildings from the property tax : (1) choultries for the occupation of which no rent is charged and (2) choultries the rent charges for occupation of which is used exclusively for charitable purposes. The respondent municipality levied taxes on the three buildings in question rejecting the claim of the appellant that they are exempted under Section 101 (b) of the Amended Act. The tax not having been paid, the three suits out of which these appeals arise were filed by the respondent Corporation for recovery of the tax.

(2.) The three buildings are contiguous to each other. One has a frontage in Mint Street and bears No. 2/355 Mint Street. The other two houses have a frontage in Nattupilliar Koil Street which is parallel to the Mint Street and bear Nos. 26 and 27 in that street. The lower Court held that the buildings are not choultries and therefore not exempted from liability to pay the tax and decreed the suits. In these appeals, the appellant challenges the finding that the houses are not choultries. The parties to the three appeals are the same; the appellant in each case is the Pandarasannadhi of the Tiruvannamalai Adhinam and the respondent, the Corporation of Madras.

(3.) As pointed out by the lower Court it is common ground that 2/355 Mint Street has been in the occupation of a number of tenants and that it was never used as a lodging for pilgrims or travellers. It was also common ground that the first compartment of Nos. 26 and 27, Nattupilliar Koil Street is generally used by the public for celebrating marriages and is also occasionally used as a place of shelter for pilgrims or travellers. Both the parties agreed before the trial Court that the first compartment of Nos. 26 and 27 is not let out for rent. The parties differed as to the way in which the back compartment of Nos. 26 and 27 was used. The case of the appellant was that even the second compartment was not let out to tenants and that it was being used for the same purposes for which the first compartment was used, namely, for celebration of marriages and as a place of shelter for travellers. His next contention was that the three buildings constituted choultries for the reason that the rent realised from the tenants is being utilised exclusively for the purpose of maintaining all the three buildings and therefore for charitable purposes.