Case: The Cantonment Board, Ambala Cantt Vs. Dipak Parkash And Others

1. In an appeal against the assessment of house tax of bungalow No. 127-B, Bank Road, Ambala Cantonment by the assessment committe of the Cantonment Board, Ambala, three questions arose as regards the liability of the assessee on which the Officer hearing the appeal entertained reasonable doubt and accordingly made a reference to the High Court of Punjab under S.84 (2) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 for the decision of these questions.2. Admittedly half of this Bungalow had been appropriated under the provisions of the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act No. VI of 1923 on a lease by the Central Government and was being used at the relevant time by some military officer for his residence. It was also admitted that the assessment list was signed originally by three of the four persons who formed the assessment committee and was signed by the fourth member a few days later. The appellate officer set out these circumstances in his statement and then formulated the three questionsWhether the occupation of the property by a Military Officer under the above circumstances amounts to user thereof for the public purpose.2. Whether the occupation of the Military Officer of the portion of the Bungalow appropriated under Act No.6 of 1923 amounts to its occupation by the Central Government within the meaning of S. 99 (f) of the Cantonments Act, 1924.3. Whether the authentication of Assessment list in the present case is valid as required by the provisions of Section 69, Cantonments Act, 1924".The appellate officer who is required by s. 84 (2) to state his own opinion on the points referred stated that in his opinion the occupation by the Military Officer, did not amount to user for a public purpose nor did it amount to occupation by the government and further that the authentication of the assessment list was valid.4. The High Court answered the two questions in the affirmative and the third in the negative. In other words, the High Courts opinion is that the occupation of the property by the Military Officer amounts to user for the public purpose and also amounts to occupation by the Central Government within the meaning of S. 99(2) (f) of the Cantonments Act and that the authentication was valid.5. Against the High Courts decision on the second question the Cantonment Board has filed this appeal on the strength of a certificate granted by the High Court.6. The assessee was not represented before us but we were taken through all the relevant provisions of law by Mr. Sen who appeared for the Cantonment Board. For a proper decision of the question in controversy it is necessary first to take note of the scheme of appropriation of houses under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, No. VI of 1923.

Reasoning:
12. It appears to us to be clear that to be entitled to the exception under cl. (f) the building or land must satisfy two conditions. First, that it has been used or acquired for public service or for public purpose, and secondly, that it is either the property of the State or in the occupation of the Central or any State Government. The finding of the High Court that the building, was being used at the relevant date for a public purpose is not disputed before us.It is worth noticing that while S.65(1) speaks of actual occupation by the owner and makes the tax primarily leviable on the owner if he is the actual occupier, S.99(2) uses the words "in the occupation of the central or any State Government" and not "in the actual occupation of the Central or the State Government". Even so, it has been argued by Mr. Sen that the word "occupation" without anything more, should ordinarily be interpreted as actual occupation. While this may be correct, we find it difficult to agree that when a person, entitled to actual occupation by reason of his lease permits another to occupy it, then it ceases to be in the actual occupation of the person so permitting. Where the Central or the State Government after obtaining the lease under S. 7 leases it out to any person, it is itself not entitled to actual occupation but has to put the sub-lessee into occupation. In such case, it may be reasonably said that the government has ceased to be in occupation. In the case where the government after taking the lease merely gives a licence to some person. to come and live in it, is entitled to take away the permission at any time and thus to come into possession itself.14. We can see no reason for thinking that in such a case the fact that the person to whom possession has been given is residing in the building, makes it any the less the actual occupation of the government. If that was so, the fact that the Military Officer may be away for months together and the members of his family or his servants are residing would make the building cease to be in occupation of the Military Officer. That is on the face of it absurd. In our opinion, where the persons entitled to occupy, permits some other person to be in the building, he is in actual occupation through such other person.15. Accordingly, we are of opinion that the building in question was in occupation of the Central Government through the Military Officer whom it has permitted to reside in it.