Government occupation through a permitted occupant can satisfy statutory exemption where no sub-lease is created.

A building appropriated under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923 and placed with a military officer under Government permission was treated as remaining in the occupation of the Central Government for exemption purposes under section 99(2)(f) of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The distinction drawn was between a sub-lease, which would divest Government occupation, and a mere licence to reside, where Government retains the right to resume possession and continues to occupy through the permitted occupant. On that basis, the statutory exemption was held to remain available and was not defeated on the facts stated.

---

---

Issues: Whether a building appropriated under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923 and occupied by a military officer at the permission of the Central Government remained in the occupation of the Central Government for the purpose of exemption under section 99(2)(f) of the Cantonments Act, 1924.

Analysis: The exemption required the building to be used or acquired for a public purpose and to be either the property of the State or in the occupation of the Central or State Government. The building had been appropriated under the house accommodation law and placed in the possession of the Officer Commanding on behalf of the Central Government. The Court drew a distinction between a sub-lease, where the Government parts with occupation, and a mere permission or licence to reside, where the Government retains the right to take back possession and remains in occupation through the person permitted to stay. The words used in section 99(2)(f) were broader than actual personal occupation and were satisfied where the Government retained legal and practical occupation through its permitted occupant.

Conclusion: The building remained in the occupation of the Central Government through the military officer permitted to reside there, and the exemption was not defeated.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the statutory conditions for exemption under section 99(2)(f) were met on the facts found.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Government, while entitled to occupy premises, merely permits another person to reside in them without creating a sub-lease, the premises remain in the occupation of the Government through that person for the purpose of statutory exemption.

---