The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 99(2)(b) of the Cantonments Act, 1924, which exempts buildings used for educational purposes from property tax, and the liberal consideration of the application for condonation of delay in filing appeals.

( 1 ) IN these two writ petitions, dispute relates to the demand of property tax under Cantonment act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as "act") from bungalow No. 113, Hill Street, Meerut Cantt. , meerut.

( 2 ) IT is claimed that in some part of bungalow No. 113, Hill Street, Meerut Cantt. , Meerut, Chirag junior School is being run and in the remaining part residence of Principal and the staff of the college exist. The claim of the petitioner is that the building is exempted from property tax under Section 99 (2) (b) of the Act. Writ Petition No. 1307 of 2003 arises from the appellate order dated 27th September, 2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Meerut and Writ petition No. 1308 arises from the appellate order dated 17th October, 2003 passed by the additional District Judge, Meerut. Writ Petition No. 1307 of 2003 :

( 3 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 29. 4. 2002, a notice under Section 68 of the Act was issued to the petitioner proposing to revise the annual rental value assessment from Rs. 1,77. 500/- to Rs. 15,03,657/- by the Board. On 3rd May, 2002, petitioner submitted reply in which it was specifically stated that the building was in use for educational purposes, namely, School and principal residence and, thus, claimed benefit of exemption under Section 99 (2) (b) of the Act. On 18th December, 2002, Assessment Committee decided the objection of the petitioner ignoring the exemption order under Section 99 (2) (b) of the Act. Committee vide non-speaking order revised the annual rental value of the property from Rs. 1,77,500/- to Rs. 2,92,875/ -. The decision of the Committee is Annexure CA-6. On 1. 3. 2003, the Committee certified the annual rental value of the building. On 31st March, 2003, public notice under Section 60 (2) of the Act was pasted on the notice board for general information of the revised annual rental value of the building. On 20th June, 2003, bill for the period April, 2003 to March, 2004 for the house-tax of rs. 35,145/- and water-tax of Rs. 18,305/- issued on the basis of the revised assessed rental value was received by the petitioner on 26th June, 2003. On 1. 7. 2003, petitioner made pre-deposit of the entire amount of the bill for filing of appeal. On 4. 7. 2003, petitioner filed Tax Appeal No. 10 of 2003. On 27th September, 2003, Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Meerut rejected the appeal of the petitioner on merit and also on the ground of limitation. It has been held by the additional District Judge, Meerut that as per the report of Sri P. K. Gupta, five rooms of the building and one Verandah are being used for School and rest eleven rooms are being used for residential purposes. It is further observed that the petitioner is not able to establish that there is no income from the portion of the building which are being used for educational purposes. According to the appellate authority, tax could not be levied only when no income is earned from the School and it was the duty of the petitioner to prove that ground floor of the building which are being used for running of School, no income is earned out of that and in the absence of any evidence, it has been presumed that the petitioner was earning income from the School and, hence, petitioner is held not entitled for the benefit of Section 99 of the Act. With regard to the decision in the case of Cantonment Board, Meerut v. St. Johns School, AIR 2002 All 313, it has been observed that the Honble Supreme Court in Appeal No. 19154 of 2002 issued notice, therefore, the benefit of such decision cannot be given to the petitioner. Appellate authority further held that under Section 69 of the Act, Board has authenticated the assessment list, therefore, appeal should have been filed within 30 days from such authentication, therefore, the present appeal is beyond time.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate order is patently illegal. He submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Cou