Court holds "house" includes factory buildings, upholds 1952 tax resolution. 1964 resolution doesn't affect legality.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the term "house" includes factory buildings and the 1952 resolution imposing taxes on factory buildings was valid. The 1964 resolution did not affect the validity of the 1952 resolution, and the demands made under the 1952 resolution were legal. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "house" u/s 89 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1933.
2. Validity of the 1952 and 1964 resolutions imposing taxes on factory buildings.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of the term "house" u/s 89 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1933:
The primary issue in this appeal is the interpretation of the term "house" as used in section 89 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1933. The appellant argued that the term "house" should be interpreted as "dwelling house," excluding factory buildings. The appellant supported this contention by referencing the substitution of the word "building" for "house" in 1954, suggesting that factory buildings were not initially included. However, the court held that the term "house" in its ordinary sense includes any building irrespective of its user, and judicial opinion supports that "house" extends to buildings used for business purposes. The court concluded that the words "houses and lands" in section 89 of the Act mean all buildings, including factory buildings.

2. Validity of the 1952 and 1964 resolutions imposing taxes on factory buildings:
The appellant contended that the 1952 resolution imposing taxes on houses was invalid for factory buildings as the Panchayat was not empowered to tax factory buildings until 1954. The court found that the 1952 resolution was validly passed under the powers conferred by section 89(1) of the Act. The appellant also argued that the 1964 resolution was invalid as it was not passed in accordance with the Act and Rules. The court held that the 1964 resolution did not supersede or modify the 1952 resolution, and no levy was imposed under the 1964 resolution. The demands made by the respondent were pursuant to the 1952 resolution, which remained valid and legal. Additionally, section 186(8) of the 1959 Act deemed that any tax imposed under the previous Act would continue in force until superseded or modified, and there was no inconsistency with the 1959 Act.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the term "house" includes factory buildings and the 1952 resolution imposing taxes on factory buildings was valid. The 1964 resolution did not affect the validity of the 1952 resolution, and the demands made under the 1952 resolution were legal. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---