H.N.Seth, J. - (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner Baikunth Dham Ashram, Bhupatwala, Hardwar through Swami Sadanand, Manager of Baikunth Dham Ashram, Bhupatwala, Hardwar questions the validity of the order dated 29th of March, 1975 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Roorkee rejecting petitioners objection that the building owned by it was not liable to be assessed to house tax and water tax under the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The petitioner further questions the validity of the appellate order dated 9th of April, 1977 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, dismissing petitioner's appeal against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate dated 29th March, 1975.
(2.) The petitioner, which claims to be religious and charitable institution, owns House No. 27, Bhupatwala, Hardwar. In due course proceedings were initiated for enhancing the annual assessment of the said building under the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The petitioner objected to the enhancement of the annual assessment, as also to the assessment of the said building to house tax and water tax inter alia on the ground that the said building was meant for religious and charitable purposes and was, therefore, not liable to be assessed to house tax. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, vide his order dated 29th of March, 1975, rejected the objection of the petitioner holding that there was nothing to show that the said building was not being used for residential purposes (that is, a purpose other than religious or charitable purpose). He did not accept petitioner's case that the said building was being used as a Dharmshala or for any other religious purpose.
(3.) Aggrieved the petitioner went up in appeal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate who dismissed the same by his order dated 9th of April, 1977. The Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that it was not disputed that house tax could not be imposed on properties used exclusively for religious purposes and that temple, Samadhi, Dhour Satsang Bhawan, bathing ghat or public tank and similar places of worship were exempted. He, however, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to show that the building was being used for any such religious purposes. He also held that the said building was net a Dharma-shall and that there was material before him to show that some portion of the building had actually been let out on rent by the petitioner. In the circumstances, he concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to any exemption front payment of house tax and water tax. He accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.;