SALEM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. GFFFOULKES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of a small cause suit instituted by the respondent against the Municipal Council of Salem for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 66-15-6 claimed by way of a vacancy remission under the provisions of Section 87 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. The respondent is the owner of a bungalow situate within the Municipal limits. His case is that on 15 March, 1940, he vacated his bungalow and left for Coonoor to stay there during the hot season and returned only on 25 June, 1940. During that period it is admitted the bungalow was not occupied by the respondent.

(2.) Section 87(1) enacts as follows: When any building whether ordinarily let or occupied by the owner himself has been vacant and unlet for thirty or more consecutive days in any half year, the executive authority shall remit so much, not exceeding one half of such portion of the tax as relates to the building only as is proportionate to the number of days during which the building was vacant and unlet in the half year. It is common ground that in so far as the conditions laid down in Sub-sections (2) and (3) are concerned, the respondent has complied with them. The only question is as to whether the bungalow can be held to have been vacant and unlet within the meaning of the section. The District Munsiff has held that it was, and he accordingly gave a decree in favour of the respondent for the refund of the amount claimed. It may be mentioned that this amount had been previously collected by the Municipality in spite of the respondent's objection.

(3.) The section, as it now stands, directs the grant of remission not only in respect of buildings ordinarily let to tenants, but also in respect of buildings ordinarily occupied by the owner himself. This was not quite clear on the language of the old section as it stood before the amendment introduced in 1930. The contention of the Municipal Council was and is that the bungalow was not vacant because the respondent had left his servant behind and had also left his furniture, library and his horse and jutka to remain in the bungalow or its compound. The District, Munsiff has however found as a fact that no jutka or pony remained in the stables and no servant except the respondent's peon or care-taker in the premises. But he accepted the case of the Municipal Council to this extent, namely, that the respondent's furniture and library remained in the bungalow and that a care-taker had been left in charge of it when the respondent left for Coonoor. He has further found that he had no intention of returning or occupying the bungalow till the date of his arrival in June. On these facts the District Munsiff came to the conclusion that the bungalow was vacant and unlet within the meaning of Section 87, and the respondent was therefore entitled to the remission claimed.