JUDGMENT

1. This is a reference under Section 162, U.P. Municipal Act, 1916. B. Gauri Shankar Varma, who was a Subordinate Judge at Sitapur, was assessed by the Tax Committee of the Municipal Board of Sitapur to a tax of Rs. 85, on his salary, which amounted to Rs. 9,120 per annum. His objection was disallowed, and then he appealed to the District Magistrate of Sitapur, who made the reference under consideration. The appeal was based on the fact that the appellant resided in the Cantonment of Sitapur, and was not an inhabitant of the Municipal area, and was not therefore liable to the tax in question. The learned Dis. trict Magistrate was of opinion that the appellant was carrying on business within the Municipal area and so he was liable to the tax in question. Though the learned District Magistrate expressed this opinion on the point under consideration, he thought it proper to refer the matter to this Court. The reference was made to this Court under these circumstances. The tax to which B. Gauri Shankar Varma was assessed was "a tax on inhabitants assessed according to their circumstances and property": see Section 128(1)(9) U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.

2. The word "inhabitant" is defined in Section 2(7) of the Act, as follows:

'Inhabitant' used with reference to a local area means any person ordinarily residing or carrying on business or owning or occupying immovable property therein.

3. Admittedly B. Gauri Shankar Varma was not residing within the Municipal area and was not owning or occupying any immovable property therein. The question is whether in performing the duties of Subordinate Judge he was "carrying on business" or not. The learned District Magistrate is of opinion that the| word "business" is of wide application and can embrace any trade, vocation or calling, and that it was not intended by the legislature to exclude Government servants from the application of the expression "carrying on business." In his view the Subordinate Judge was carrying on business within the Municipal area. We are not prepared to agree with the opinion of the learned District Magistrate in this matter. The referring order shows that there was an exactly similar case before Mr. Cruickshank, the then District Magistrate of Sitapur, in the year 1927. In that case B. Jhummak Lal, Deputy Collector, who resided in the Can-tonment, appealed against being assessed to the tax in question. Mr. Cruickshank held that B. Jhummak Lal's work as Deputy Collector was not "business." He accepted the contention of B. Jhummak Lal, and was of opinion that it was not the intention of the Act 'and legislature to include in the term "carrying on business," the work of a Government servant on fixed salary. He was also of opinion that the term "carrying on business," implied something of private or semi-private nature and not the work of a Government official. We are in substantial agreement with the opinion of Mr. Cruickshank. In our opinion, the appellant was not "carrying on business' within the municipal area in discharging the duties of his office as Subordinate Judge, Sitapur. In Lewis v. Graham, (1888) 20 QB D 784 it was held that a clerk employed by a solicitor at offices in the pity of London does not "carry on business" there within the meaning of the Mayor's Court Extension Act, 1857, so as to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court. The following observations were made by Lord Coleridge, C.J., in his judgment in that case:

In a certain sense the defendant was carrying on business, because he was employed in the City, and if the words 'carrying on business' must be held to extend to overy kind of employment the argument of his learned Counsel is wrong. But that is not a fair interpretation of the words. The busine'ss must be some business in which he has control, or acts as one of the partners engaged in carrying it on. A particular clerk or workman who is engaged about the business, but has no control over it whatever, cannot be said