Choultry exemption under Section 88 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 is available only to choultries as such and not to any other buildings which are not choultries. The exemption is intended only for choultries as such and not for any shops or buildings belonging to choultries.

VISWANATHA SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff, whose suit and appeal have been dismissed by both the Courts, has come up with this Second Appeal.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a choultry at Palakol represented by its Executive Officer. According to the allegations the plaint, there are dining hall, kitchen, central hall and other rooms used for lodging purposes in the choultry. No rent is charged from any lodger for the occupation of the rooms. Only electricity consumption charges are collected from them. Free boarding is arranged for travellers and poor students. The choultry regularly provides free boarding for the poor students. The plaint schedule mentions four rooms. They are abutting the road and are situate in the choultry. They have been leased out by the plaintiff to Gandhi Medical Hall, Venkateswara Ayurveda Nilayam, Mahalaxmi Cut Pieces and Prabhat Sudha Khadder Vastralayam, which have separate assessment numbers respectively as 4879, 4876, 4875 and 4874. The rents realised from the tenants in these shops are exclusively utilised for the above charitable purposes. The respondent-municipality issued a notice on 5-3-1969 demanding property tax for the suit schedule four rooms also. According to the plaintiff, they are exempt from levy of any property tax under Section 88 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Municipality has also assessed surcharge under Act XIII of 1958 for the said shops. The levy of house tax and the demand of surcharge are illegal. Hence the suit has been filed for a declaration that the levy and demand of house tax and surcharge for the plaint schedule buildings (the four rooms mentioned in the schedule), is illegal and void and for consequently injunction restraining the respondent from collecting the same and for costs.

( 3 ) THE defendant-municipality resisted the suit. According to it, the plaint schedule properties do not constitute a choultry or a part of a choultry to claim exemption under Section 88 of the Act. They have been let out for the purposes unconnected with the object of the choultry and hence the assessment in dispute are not at all illegal.

( 4 ) ON the aforesaid pleadings the trial court framed appropriate issues. The main issue in the case was issue No. 1. It related to the question whether the plaint schedule properties form part of the choultry as understood in Section 88 of the Act and whether those properties are used for purposes contemplated by the said section. The second issue related to the question of exemption from the levy of property tax. On a consideration of the evidence the trial court held on issue No. 1 that the plaint schedule four rooms do not form part of the choultry as they do not come within the definition of the word choultry. At the same time i found that the rent collected from these properties is used for charitable purposes. In view of this finding that the four rooms do not form part of the choultry the trial court found on issue No. 1 that the plaintiff is not entitled for exemption in respect of the said four rooms. The claim of the plaintiff in regard to surcharge was allowed and it is no more in dispute in this second appeal. In the result, the suit for declaration and injunction was decreed only in respect of surcharge relief and dismissed in respect of the relief of levy of property tax.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff went up in appeal before the Sub-Court, Narasapur. The learned appellate Judge also held that these four shops are not used for the convenience of those people whose the choultry either free of rent or for rent and hence they ceased to be a choultry within the meaning of the Act. It was therefore held that the appellant could not claim exemption for the suit schedule property from levy of property tax. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

( 6 ) IN the Second Appeal Mr. P. P. Surya Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant has again reiterated the same contentions. He has also placed some decision

Click Here to Read the rest of this document