B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal involves the interpretation of clause (c) of sub-section (4) of Section 115 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Sub-section (4) levies, what is called, a "General Tax" on "all lands and buildings" in Delhi except "(c) agricultural lands and bulidings (other than dwelling houses)". The question is whether the farm houses within the Delhi Municipal Corporation area are exigible to general tax as "dwelling houses".
(3.) The respondent owns an extent of about 13 bighas in the Revenue estate of village Bijwasan, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. According to him, he carries on agricultural operations thereon. He constructed a building on the said land, which, according to him, is occupied for purposes connected with agricultural operations on the said land and wherein the respondent and his family members stay whenever they visit the farm. According to the respondent, further the building is not occupied on a permanent basis but only occasionally as and when they visit the farm. The contention of the respondent before the High Court was that since the said building is connected with the agriculture being carried on over the said extent of 13 bighas, it is exempt from tax under Section 115(4)(c) notwithstanding the fact that it is a "dwelling house". On the other hand, the case of the Corporation was that since the said building is a "dwelling house" within the meaning of Section 115(4)(c), it is subject to general tax. According to the corporation, it is immaterial whether the dwelling house is occupied on a permanent basis or only occasionally. It is equally immaterial, says the corporation, whether the dwelling house is occupied for the purpose of agriculture being carried on over the adjacent lands or otherwise. It is enough that it is a dwelling unit, says the corporation. It is taxable. The High Court has not accepted the contention urged by the corporation. The High Court has opined that a dwelling unit is exempted from general tax if it is mainly or pre-dominantly occupied or used for agricultural purposes. This is what the High Court said: "We are therefore of the view that so far as the exemption provision in Section 115(4)(c) is concerned, the test is not whether buildings or Farm houses are used solely in connection with agricultural operations. In our view, the said exemption applies to buildings or farm houses used "substantially", if not solely, for agricultural purposes. If this test is satisfied, the building or farm house falls outside the tax-net. So far as the exclusionary words other than dwelling houses are concerned, we are again of the view that the buildings or farm houses must be solely or substantially used for dwelling purposes, that is to say, with a degree of continuity and permanency, and not solely or substantially for agricultural purposes, then such buildings will fall inside the tax net. We do not visualise any third category of buildings or farm houses which do not fall into one or other categories abovestated. Assuming however that any such intermediate category arises, we are of the view that the person claiming the exemption will not be entitled to exemption from property tax unless he proves that the building is solely or substantially used for agricultural purposes. Whether a given building is used substantially for agricultural purposes, is a question depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on what, according to general principles of law could be said to be the meaning of the words agricultural purposes." ;