LAWS(PVC)-1928-2-186

AGHORE NATH HALDAR Vs. DWIJAPADA CHATTERJEE

Decided On February 09, 1928
AGHORE NATH HALDAR Appellant
V/S
DWIJAPADA CHATTERJEE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue raised in this appeal involves the construction of the term persons occupying holdings" in Section 85(a), Bangal Municipal Act 3 of 1881. The appellant is the Headmaster of the English High School at Jangipur. From October 1921-23 he resided in a boarding house or hostel for students adjoining the school buildings, but the school building and the hostel for the purposes of the Bengil Municipal Act are, and are to be treated as, separate-holdings. The hostel belongs to the School Committee, and its internal affairs are managed by a Superintendent. Persons who are accepted as boarders are entitled to reside in the hostel only if, and so long as they conform to the rules and regulations of the institution. The hostel exists primarily for students, but the appellant obtained permission to reside therein as a boarder upon the usual terms, and became entitled to occupy a seat or bed in one of the rooms on the upper storey and to partake of the meals supplied in the hostel for an inclusive charge of Rs. 7-8-0 per month.

(2.) The appellant, however, was not entitled to the use of any particular seat or bed, and so long as he was given a seat in any one of the rooms on the upper storey he was liable to have his seat changed from time to time as the superintendent might direct or the exigencies of the hostel might require.

(3.) In these circumstances an assessment was made upon the appellant under Sec. 85(a) <JGN>Page</JGN> 2 of 5 Bengil Municipal Act, and the amount of the tax was realized by the issue of distress warrants. The appellant thereupon brought the present suit to recover inter alia the amount of the tax that had been levied upon him. The trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the assessment upon the appellant was illegal, but the lower appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. From the decree of the lower appellate Court the appellant has preferred the present appeal.