Broad interpretation of "house" upheld for village tax, extending levy to factory buildings and preserving the earlier resolution.

In construing section 89 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1933, the Supreme Court read "house" in a broad statutory sense and held that it was not confined to dwelling houses. The statutory scheme, related provisions on other optional taxes, and the rules framed under section 108 supported an inclusive interpretation covering factory buildings, so the tax levy on factory premises fell within the panchayat's power. The Court also treated the 1952 tax resolution as continuing in force, since the 1964 resolution did not supersede it and the saving provision in section 186(8) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 preserved existing taxes until validly altered. The demand was therefore legally sustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "house" in section 89 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1933 includes factory buildings for the purpose of levy of tax. (ii) Whether the resolution of 10 August 1964 superseded or invalidated the tax demand founded on the resolution of 24 February 1952.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "house" in section 89 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1933 includes factory buildings for the purpose of levy of tax.

Analysis: The expression "house" was not defined in the Act and had to be construed according to the sense in which persons conversant with the subject matter would understand it. The statutory scheme, the amendments to section 89, and the rules framed under section 108 showed that the word was used in a broad sense and was not confined to dwelling houses. The provisions dealing separately with other optional taxes, including taxes on shops, hotels, and premises where machinery was run, also indicated that the compulsory tax on houses and lands was intended to extend to all buildings. The rules and the long-standing legislative treatment of the subject furnished aid to construction.

Conclusion: The word "house" in section 89 included factory buildings, and the levy on the appellant's factory buildings was within the statutory power.

Issue (ii): Whether the resolution of 10 August 1964 superseded or invalidated the tax demand founded on the resolution of 24 February 1952.

Analysis: The 1952 resolution had validly imposed the tax and was never shown to have been superseded. The 1964 resolution did not operate as a supersession of the earlier levy, and the demands made against the appellant were traceable to the 1952 resolution. In any event, the saving provision in section 186(8) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 preserved existing taxes until they were superseded or modified, and the tax was not shown to be inconsistent with the later Act.

Conclusion: The 1952 levy continued to support the demands, and the challenge based on the 1964 resolution failed.

Final Conclusion: The tax demands on the factory buildings were legally sustainable, and the appellant was not entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In construing a taxing provision governing local village taxation, the word "house" may extend to factory and other non-residential buildings where the statutory context and scheme show that the legislature used the term in a broad, inclusive sense rather than confining it to dwelling houses.

---