The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the exemption clause in Section 99(2)(b) of the Cantonments Act, 1924, and the pre-condition for depositing the amount in dispute for hearing an appeal under Section 87(b).

( 1 ) CANTONMENT Board, Meerut has filed this writ petition challenging judgment and order dated 23-11-1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Meerut by which he has allowed an appeal under Section 84 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 in short "the Act setting aside notice dated 24-3-1988 levying property tax on Bungalow No. 117, Bank Street, Meerut, occupied by St. John" School, Meerut (in short "the School" ).

( 2 ) I have heard Sri Samir Sharma appearing for petitioner and Sri Vivek Chaudhary for respondent.

( 3 ) THE Executive Officer, Cantonment Board issued notice dated 27-6-1987 to St. Johns School, Meerut to revise assessment of tax on property No. 117, Bank Street, Meerut under Section 68 of the Act. The Principal of the School in his objection to the notice, stated that the entire building is used for educational purposes, and is thus exempt from paying any tax whatsoever. No house tax can be proposed on the said building. He further stated that no additional building has been constructed during the period and that no portion of the building has been given on hire, nor any rental income is being derived from the building or any portion thereof. A notice was issued fixing 27-10-1987 as a date for hearing. The Principal attended the office and requested to give further date. Accordingly a notice was given to him on 17-12-1987 by the Executive Officer, calling upon him to give details and particulars of the students, as well as books relating to the income of the school. The Principal sought another date vide his letter dated 18-12-1987. On 22-12-1987 Principal appeared before Executive Officer, but did not give any details, nor any affidavit was given providing before said information. The assessment was consequently revised for the year 1989-90 increasing annual burden to the tune of Rs. 7,24,656. 76 over and above the tax paid by the school. According to report of the Cantonment Engineer the total area of the School is 1. 674 acres i. e. 72,919. 44 Sq. ft. = 6774. 21 Sq, Meters of which the built up area is 1973. 91 Sq. Meters. The assessment list was authenticated by the Assessment Committee after publishing notice dated 24-3-1988 under Section 69 (2) of the Act, and it was confirmed by the Board vide CBR N. 13 dated 13-4-1988. An increased bill was not sent to the school for payment of the aforesaid amount, annually over and above the amount paid by the school

( 4 ) THE school preferred an appeal under Section 84 of the Act, challenging assessment as authenticated on 24-3-1988 and filed a stay application along with memo of appeal. The Cantonment Board objected to the maintainability of the appeal under Section 87 (b) of the Act on the ground that school has not deposited the amount due, and thus the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. By judgment and order dated 21-5-1988, IInd Additional District Judge, Meerut allowed Tax Appeal No. 3 of 1988 holding that educational institutions are exempted from assessment of tax on their property and accepted the argument that an affidavit was given before the Board that no income is being derived from the building. The Board preferred a Writ Petition No. 1452 (Tax) of 1988 which was allowed by this Court on 25-8-1994 directing St. Johns School, Meerut to comply with the provisions contained under Section 87 (b) of the Act. In other connected matters Sophia Girls School and St. Marys School, situated in Meerut Cantt. Civil Appeal No. 2922-24 of 1996 was filed. These civil appeals were dismissed by Honble Supreme Court relying upon the decision in Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1993 (1) SCC 22, wherein similar provision of appeal provided under Section 107 (b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 upholding that some observation namely that there is no bar in entertainment of the application before deposit of tax due but the same cannot be heard unless the tax is deposited were considered. The Civil Appeals were accordingly dispo