- (1.)THESE are three appeals by the State of Bombay against the decree passed by the Joint Civil Judges, S. D. , Ahmedabad, and confirmed in appeal by the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, restraining the Ahmedabad Municipality and the State of Bombay
"from recovering urban immovable property tax from the plaintiffs on the basis of their properties being considered one building only. "
The appeals have been heard together, as they involve a common point of law relating to the interpretation -of Section 22, Bombay Finance Act, 1932.
(2.)THESE three appeals arise from three different suits. The plaintiffs in these suits are cousins and are owners of three properties, which form parts of one building. The land, on which this building stands, was purchased in 1940. The whole building was built at one time and thereafter it was divided into three portions, which were given different Municipal Census Nos. 2347, 2348 and 2348a. A portion in front of the entire building was kept joint for use as a common passage. Each of these three portions is separately owned and separately assessed to property tax by the Ahmedabad Municipality. Each portion has got a ground floor and two upper floors and a separate stair-case. There is one continuous terrace on the top of the building, but it has demarcating lines. The three properties are shown as belonging to different persons, the plaintiffs in the three suits, in the property Register and in the Municipal records. The plaintiffs' case is that each of these properties was separately assessed for the urban immoveable property tax leviable under Section 22, Bombay Finance Act up to 1946-47 on the annual letting value of that property. In the bills for 1947-48 and 1948-49, the tax was, however, claimed at the higher rate of 7 1/2 per cent, on the total annual letting value of all the three properties. In 1950 the plaintiffs therefore filed three suits, in which they prayed for injunctions against the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, defendant 1 and the State of Bombay, defendant 2, directing them to prepare separate bills for each property on the basis of its annual letting value alone. Defendant No. 1 the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad did not appear and the suits against it were heard ex parte. The suite were defended by the State of Bombay. The contention of the State was that all the properties were parts of one building and that consequently under the second proviso to Section 22, Bombay Finance Act, the urban immoveable property tax could be assessed on the annual letting value of the building as a whole. This contention has not been accepted by both the lower Courts. The State of Bombay has therefore come in appeal.
(3.)SECTION 22, Bombay Finance Act, 1932, is in the following terms:--There shall, subject to the provisions of Section 23, be levied and paid to the State Government a tax on buildings and lands, hereinafter called the 'urban Immovable Property tax' at such rate not exceeding seven per cent, of the annual letting value of the buildings or lands in such area or areas as may be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette: provided that
(1) such tax shall be levied and paid to the State Government at such rate not exceeding three and half per cent of the annual letting value of the buildings or lands not exceeding such amount and in such area or areas as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette;

(2) that if any building consists of more than one tenement and such tenements are separately assessed to the proprty tax, the urban immovable property tax shall be assessed on the annual letting value of the building as a whole;

(3) where more than one building or land in the same locality is owned by the same person, the urban immovable property tax shall be assessed on the annual letting value of all such buildings on lands;

(4) if any building owned by a Co-operative Housing Society or the members thereof consists of more than one tenement, the urban immovable property tax shall be assessed on the annual letting value of the tenement or tenements owned by, or occupied by each member separately, as if it were a building whether- such tenement or tenements are separately assessed to the property tax or not.
Under proviso 2 to, this section, if a building consists of more than one tenement and such tenements are separately assessed to the property tax, the urban immoveable property tax is to be assessed on the annual letting value of the building as a whole. The expression "property tax" is defined in Clause 7 of Section 21. The Act as it stood in 1947 defined the property tax, in the City of Ahmedabad, where the suit properties are situated, to mean a tax or rate on buildings or lands or a tax or rate in the form of such tax or rate on buildings or lands levied under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. Under Section 73, Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, any Borough Municipality may impose a rate on buildings or lands or both situated within the municipal borough. This section also empowers the Municipality to impose a general water rate or a special water rate in the form of a rate assessed on building and lands. From the provisions of the Municipal Boroughs Act relating to the preparation of the assessment list and the persons primarily liable to pay the municipal tax, it appears that each property separately owned is recognised as a separate building for the purpose of assessing the municipal tax. This, however, cannot be the basis for assessing the urban immoveable property tax, for proviso 2 to Section 22 expressly states that this tax shall be assessed on the annual letting value of the building as a whole; if it contains tenements which are separately assessed to the property tax. The properties of the three plaintiffs are separately assessed to property tax. The question for consideration therefore is whether they are three buildings or whether they are three tenements in one building within the meaning of proviso 2 to Section 22, Bombay Finance Act. The answer to this will depend on the meaning to be given to the words "building" and "tenement" used in this proviso.