Case: Corporation Of The City Of Nagpur Vs. The Nagpur Handloom Cloth Marketco. Ltd

did not apply to portions of buildings when they were occupied for non-residential purposes merely because of the use of the expression family in the rule. But the expression family has according to the context in which it occurs, a variable connotation. It does not in the setting of the rules postulate the existence of relationship either of blood or by marriage between the persons residing in the tenement. Even a single person may be regarded as a family, and a master and servant would also be so regarded The word occupy used in R. 10(a) is not restricted either expressly or by anything contained in the context in the context of the rule suggesting that the occupation is to be only for residential purposes, and in the absence of any such implication the rule must be deemed to be of general application i.e. it applies to uses non-residential as well as residential. The expression family must therefore take colour from the expression occupy used in the same rule. In our view the expression family in the context in which it occurs, means no more than a person or a group of persons. 14. Mr. Pathak appearing on behalf of the Corporation submitted that there was a drafting error in R. 10 (a), and as a matter of interpretation the Court would be justified in reading the expression family in that rule as meaning family or person - which is the expression used in R. 10 (c) He submits that R. 10 (a) and R. 10 (c) deal with the same subject matter and, therefore, the Court would be justified in holding that the expression one family used in R. 10 (a) and the expression person or family in R. 10 (c) must have the same meaning. Prima facie, there is substance in this contention, but we do not think it necessary to base our decision on that ground. In our view the expression family has not a restricted meaning as suggested by the High Courts, and under the rules imposing liability to pay conservancy tax and water rate liability is imposed upon every building, which expression includes a part of a building, occupied as an independent unit irrespective of the nature of the user. The learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Company submitted that under the Corporation Act the owner and not the occupier is liable for the conservancy tax and water rate and therefore separate assessments of different units occupied by the shopkeepers could not be made. This plea was not raised in the High Court. Even apart from this infirmity, there is no substance in the plea. Under S. 114 of the Act a latrine or conservancy tax payable by the occupier or the owner may be imposed. Similarly water rate may be imposed, when water is supplied by the Corporation. By the rules framed under S. 71 of the C. P and Berar Municipalities Act of 1922 and continued under the Act of 1948 liability imposed for payment of the conservancy tax and the assessment rules is not restricted to owners only. By R. 4 of the assessment rules the Corporation is required to prepare an assessment list containing the names of the persons liable to pay the tax. The assessment rules therefore clearly indicate that the occupier of the premises may be rendered liable to pay the conservancy tax and the water rate. Section 165 of Act makes all the sums due from any person in respect of taxes on any land or building, a first charge upon the said land or building and upon any movable property found within or upon such land or building and belonging to the said person, provided that no arrears of any such tax shall be recoverable from any occupier who is not the owner, if such arrears are for a period during which the occupier was not in occupation. It is implicit in S. 165 that an occupier of the premises may be liable to pay the tax even though he is not the owner. It is also necessary to point out that the scheme under which the shop keepers are occupying the premises has not been produced before this Court. It is admitted, however, that the shopkeepers will be owners of the premises occupied by them as soon as the amounts which they have agreed to pay are fully paid and their liability discharged. The Company treated the shop- keepers as owners (vide their letter dated September 30, 1953). Manifestly they have a substantial interest in the tenements in their occupation and it would be difficult not to call them owners for purposes of municipal taxation. According to the definition in S. 5 (37) of the Act owner."when used with reference to any land or building includes the person for the time being receiving the rent of the land or building or of any part of the land or building whether on his own account or as agent or trustee for any person or society or for any religious or charitable purpose, or as a receiver who would receive such rent if the land, building or part thereof were let to a tenant." There is nothing on the record to show that the shop-keepers would not be entitled to let out the premises in their occupation and if they can they would be regarded as owners within the meaning of cl. (37) of S. 5. 15. In our view, therefore, the High Court was in error in holding that R. 10 (7a) applied only to building occupied for residential purpose. The rule in our judgment applies to buildings occupied for non-residential as well as residential purposes, and to every part of a building occupied by person or a group of persons having a separate source of income, whether the occupation is for residential or non-residential purpose and such person or group of persons would be liable to pay the conservancy tax and the water rate.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. By the rules, liability to pay conservancy tax and water rate is imposed in respect of a building provided certain conditions specified in the rule are fulfilled, and this liability arises whether the building is used for residential purposes or non-residential purposes. Rule 10(a) also clearly authorises the Corporation to levy water rate and the conservancy tax in respect of separate tenements occupied by different persons as if each such tenement is a building. In the view of the High Court use of the expression family in R.10(a) indicated that the rule did not apply to building occupied for non-residential purposes. But by the rules imposing the conservancy tax and the water rate, all buildings to which are attached latrines cleansed by municipal agency and all buildings which are connected with the water distribution system, or which are situated within the prescribed distance of water standards, are liable to pay the conservancy tax and the water rate irrespective of the nature of the use to which the building is put. It is implicit in the view of the High Court that a building occupied for nonresidential use can be taxed as one unit, even if the building is occupied by tenants or licencees, carrying on their separate or individual trades or businesses. But this view, does not appear to be supported by the scheme of the Act and rules. If a building is partly occupied for residential and partly for non-residential purposes the portions occupied for residential purposes would, in the view of the High Court, be regarded as separate buildings, and each occupant having a separate source of income would be liable to pay conservancy tax and water rate but the portion occupied for non residential purposes would not be regarded as separate building. The High Court reached its conclusion that R. 10(a) did not apply to portions of buildings when they were occupied for non-residential purposes merely because of the use of the expression family in the rule. But the expression family has according to the context in which it occurs, a variable connotation. It does not in the setting of the rules postulate the existence of relationship either of blood or by marriage between the persons residing in the tenement. Even a single person may be regarded as a family, and a master and servant would also be so regarded The word occupy used in R. 10(a) is not restricted either expressly or by anything contained in the context in the context of the rule suggesting that the occupation is to be only for residential purposes, and in the absence of any such implication the rule must be deemed to be of general application i.e. it applies to uses non-residential as well as residential. The expression family must therefore take colour from the expression occupy used in the same rule. In our view the expression family in the context in which it occurs, means no more than a person or a group of persons15. In our view, therefore, the High Court was in error in holding that R. 10 (7a) applied only to building occupied for residential purpose. The rule in our judgment applies to buildings occupied for non-residential as well as residential purposes, and to every part of a building occupied by person or a group of persons having a separate source of income, whether the occupation is for residential or non-residential purpose and such person or group of persons would be liable to pay the conservancy tax and the water rate.