JUDGMENT

Verma, J. - This is a petition in revision by the plaintiff against a decree of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Dehra Dun. The suit was for the recovery of a total sum of Rs. 547-6-0 alleged to be due from the defendant as tax on circumstances and property for a certain number of years. The defendant raised various pleas in defence, but we are concerned with only two of them, namely, (1) that the defendant "did not come within the purview of Section 114, Clause (a), District Boards Amendment Act," and (2) that, at any rate, a portion of the claim was barred by time. The learned Judge has dismissed the entire suit.

2. The learned Judge has held in favour of the plaintiff that the defendant assessee, residing as he does within the "rural areas" in question, is not entitled to say that he is outside the purview of Section 114(a), U.P. District Boards Act (10 of 1922). He has however dismissed the suit because, to put it briefly, in his opinion the tax is unjust and would operate harshly, so far, at any rate, as Government servants residing only for certain periods within the jurisdiction of the District Board in question are concerned. We are unable to agree with the learned Judge that such consideration can justify the dismissal of the suit. The provisions laid down in Sections 128 and 131 of the Act make it perfectly clear that the learned Judge was not right in adverting to these considerations and in basing his judgment upon them. Another reason given by the learned Judge for holding in favour of the defendant and dismissing the suit is that the defendant pays Income Tax and is "therefore free from a second assessment." This view is clearly erroneous. The learned Judge is not right in thinking that the tax on "circumstances and property" which the District Board imposes is Income Tax. No question of a second assessment arises.

3. The previous sanction of the Governor. General, as required by Sub-section 3 of Section 80-A, Government of India Act, then in force, was obtained to the passing of the U.P. District Boards Act (10 of 1922). That being so, the Local Government was entitled to enact the Sections which authorize the imposition of taxes by the District Boards. Section 108, U.P. District Boards Act, runs as follows:

With the previous sanction of the Local Government a Board may, by notification, impose and may in like manner abolish or alter the rate of either or both of the following taxes : (a) a local rate u/s 3, U.P. Local Hates Act, 1914, as modified by this Act; (b) a tax on persons assessed according to their circumstances and property (hereinafter referred to as the 'tax on circumstances and property') in accordance with Section 114:

Provided that a Board shall not effect an increase in the amount of the local rate in force at the commencement of this Act unless a tax on circumstances and property has been imposed under Clause (b).

4. The relevant portion of Section 114 may also be quoted:

The power of a Board to impose a tax on circumstances and property shall be subject to the following conditions and restrictions namely, (a) the tax may be imposed on any person residing or carrying on business in the rural area, provided that such person has so resided or carried on business for a total period of at least six months in the year under assessment.

5. It is perfectly clear therefore that the District Board was authorized in law to impose a tax on persons residing in the rural area assessed according to their circumstances and property. The argument of Mr. Banerji who appears for the defendant respondent, is that the area covered by the Forest Research Institute at Dehra Dun, within which area the defendant resides, is not within the rural area and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the District Hoard. He refers to Section 1(2) of the Act which lays down that the Act extends to the territories for the time being administered by the Local Government of the United Provinces and urges that th