Co-Operative House Building ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
1987 Latest Caselaw 268 Del

JUDGMENT

Mahinder Narain, J.

(1) This revision is directed against the order of Mr. Ravi Kumar, Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 31st March, 1983, passed in an application under Section 169(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Section 169 in so far as it is relevant, reads as under :-

"169(1)An appeal against the levy or assessment of any tax under this Act shall lie to the court of the district Judge of Delhi.

(2)If, before or on the hearing of an appeal under this section, any question of law or usage having the force of law or construction of a document arises, the court of the district judge on its own motion may, or on the application of any party to the appeal, shall, draw up a statement of the facts of the case, and the question so arising, and refer the statement with its opinion on the question for the decision of the High Court."

(2) The Additional District Judge who has to hear appeals under the provisions of Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, has declined to make a reference as to whether the premises in question is being used for charitable purpose or not.

(3) In my view, the question squarely arises and needs to be referred to this Court for the reason that the words used in Section 115(4)(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are "charitable purpose". In the explanation to Section 115(4)(a) of the Act, "charitable purpose" is stated to include relief of the poor, education and medical relief but does not include a purpose which relates exclusively to religious teaching.

(4) "CHARITABLE purpose" is also defined in the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890. The definition in that statute reads as under:- "IN this Act "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility, but does not include a purpose which relates exclusively to religious teaching or worship."

(5) Statutorily, therefore, one of the charitable purposes is "advance of any other object of general public utility."

(6) It is the case of the petitioners that they are providing a facility or a utility service for the benefit of the local residents. It is also the case of the petitioners that whatever income is derived from the "Kalyan Kendra" or community centre, which has been built on a plot of land measuring 2000 sq. yards by letting out portions of the premises, that income is being utilised for the purposes of ensuring that the facilities are provided to the residents.

(7) Charitable purposes are also subject matter of adjudication under the Income-tax Acts. The words "general public utility" have been considered in number of judgments of courts, particularly in (1973) 88 I.T.R. 354 (Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association) (1), (1980) 126 I.T.R. 27 (Bar Council of Maharashtra v. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City-II : (2), and (1981) 130 I.T.R. 28 (Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay v. Bar Council of Maharashtra) (3).

(8) Referring to these judgments, commentators Chaturvedi & Pithisaria in their commentary on Income-tax Law, 1981 Edition, at page 534 have said : " "General" means pertaining to a whole class ; "public" means the body of people at large including any class of the public ; and "utility" means usefulness. Therefore, the advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a section of the public as distinguished from an individual or a group of individuals".

(9) Providing facilities like a hall for holding meetings, a place for playing games where both mind and body are exercised, may well amount to charitable purpose, and thus a case needs to be stated under Section 169(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, as the petitioners had moved the Additional District Judge for that purpose.

(10) The Additional District Judge had not examined the ambit and content of the word "charitable purpose" with reference to provisions of other statutes and Judgments of courts, as he ought to have done when deciding the application.

(11) Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by the Additional District Judge on 31st March, 1983, and direct the Additional District Judge concerned in whose court the appeal filed by the petitioners is at present pending adjudication, to draw up a statement of facts of the case and the question arising, and refer the statement of case with his opinion on the question, for the decision of this Court.

(12) Let the needful be done within three months from today.

(13) The revision petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs.