KANHARDAS JANKIDAS BAIRAGI Vs. KESHAV GOVIND BARGANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a common question in these two appeals, viz., whether rooms appurtenant to a temple which are used for residential purposes and let to tenants are exempt from municipal taxation on the ground that the income is used for religious purposes connected with the temple.

(2.) The appellant is the manager of a temple of Balaram at Jalgaon to which there are attached twelve rooms, one occupied by the manager himself and the others by tenants who pay rent for them. It is an admitted fact that the income derived from these rents is used for the purposes of the temple. The Jalgaon Municipality has for some time past been levying house-tax on the rooms and the tax has been paid. But in 1927-28 the amount of the tax was increased and the manager appealed against the assessment under Section 110 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, XVIII of 1925. The Magistrate who tried the case decided that, asthe rent of the rooms is exclusively used for religious purposes, the Municipality was not entitled to levy the house tax, and the whole amount was remitted. On this the Municipality brought the suit, from which second appeal No. 189 of 1931 arises, to set aside the Magistrate's order and to recover the amount of the tax. This relief has been granted by the lower Courts. A counter suit was brought by the manager to recover the amount Of the tax paid by him for 1927-28, for a declaration of non-liability to taxation and for a permanent injunction restraining the officers of the Municipality from assessing and levying the tax. That suit has been dismissed by both the lower Courts and it is the subject of second appeal No. 201 of 1931.

(3.) I may deal first with the question of the liability of these rooms to taxation, which is common to the two appeals. It depends on the construction of a municipal bye-law which is in the following terms :- The following buildings shall be exempt from the payment of house-tax, viz. :- (a) building used exclusively for religious, charitable or Municipal purposes. I may say that the actual temple of Balaram and also a room for the accommodation of visitors to it are exempted by the Municipality under this bye-law. The question is whether the rooms which are let to tenants can be regarded as being used exclusively for religious or charitable purposes. Prima facie, and apart from authority, I should certainly say that the view taken by the lower Courts is correct. The rooms themselves are used for a secular purpose, and the fact that the income derived from such use is devoted to religious purposes would not, I should say, bring the buildings themselves within the ambit of the bye- law. The argument of the learned advocate for the appellant would equally apply if the buildings were used as shops or as a factory or as an entertainment hall. But in such circumstances, I think, it would be obviously unreasonable to say that the buildings were used for religious or charitable purposes merely because the income derived from them was applied to such a purpose.