Exemption from property tax under Section 83(1)(a) of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920 applies only to places set apart for public worship and used exclusively for that purpose, excluding places used for other purposes.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The Municipal Council of Palni has assessed to the property-tax leviable under Section 81 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, a power-house belonging to the Sri Dandayuthapani Devasthanam. The power-house is situate at the foot of the Palni Andavar Hill and within the municipal limits. The trustees objected on the ground that this building was exempt from taxation by reason of the provisions of Section 83(1)(a) of the Act. The property having been assessed t6 this tax and the tax having been paid, the trustees instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Palni for the recovery of the amount. The District Munsif found against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit, but on appeal his decision was reversed and the suit was decreed. The Municipal Council now appeals to this Court.

2. It is common ground that the whole hill was set apart for religious purposes. On the top of the hill is a famous temple which is approached by means of a long flight of steps. At the top of the hill there are also shops and a hotel which supply the needs of the pilgrims who visit the temple. In 1929, the trustees built the power-house and installed electric plant for the purpose of lighting the way up to the temple and the temple itself. Later on, they supplied electricity to the shop-keepers and the hotel-keeper for which the trustees charged profitable rates. The fact that electricity was supplied to the shops and to the hotel led the Municipal Council to assess the power-house to the property-tax. If the power-house is to be exempt from this tax, the building must come within the purview of Section 83(1)(a) because there is no other section in the Act which can relieve the trustees from the obligation of paying the property-tax.

3. Section 83(1) reads as follows:

The following buildings and lands shall be exempt from the property-tax-

(a) place set apart for public worship and either actually so used or used for no other purpose, countries, buildings used for educational purposes, including hostels, public buildings and places used for the charitable purpose of sheltering the destitute or animals, libraries and play-grounds which are open to the public and such ancient monuments protected under the Ancient Monuments. Preservation Act, 1904, or parts thereof as are not used as residential quarters or as public offices.

4. It is not necessary to go beyond the words "places set apart for public worship and either actually so used or used for no other purpose", as it is clear that the power-house is not a building of the nature of any of those subsequently mentioned. In our opinion, the words "places set apart for public worship and either actually so used or used for no other purpose" read with the opening words of the section mean that there shall be exemption for places set apart for public worship and used for that purpose and for places set apart for public worship, but not actually in use. If a place is used for a purpose other than public worship, the place does not fall within the exemption, even though the intention was that it should be used for public worship. It has been suggested that the use of the word or instead of and makes a difference. It does make a difference, but not the difference suggested. If the word were and and not or there would only be exemption when a place was set apart, for public worship and actually used for that purpose, but as a result of using the word or there is exemption when the place has been set apart for public worship, but is not actually in use. The drafting leaves much to be desired, but it is obvious that the intention is to exempt buildings which are intended for religious purposes and are not being used for secular purposes.

5. What is the position here? The hill has been set apart for public worship and it cannot be disputed that if this powerhouse were merely used for lighting the temple and the approach to it the power-house would be exempte