TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (6) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the respondent that the premises in question are exempted under section 4 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act", was countered by the petitioners by contending that the respondent is not a local authority. 2. The learned Judge was called upon to decide the question as to whether the respondent is a local authority. The answer of the Court below was in the was in the affirmative. This order was passed by the Court below by its judgment and order dated 20th January, 1983 which is challenged in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. The importance of the question as to whether the respondent is a local authority arises from what is mentioned in section 4 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act which provides that the Act shall not apply to any premises belonging to a local authority. If the respondent is not a local authority then, may be, the petitioners would be protected by the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. If the respondent is a local authority, the exemption will apply and the petitioners will not be entitled to invoke the protection under the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mittedly constituted under section 3 of the Major Ports Trusts Act, 1963 and like the Board under the Act of 1879 the present board is also a body corporate entitled to sue and is liable to be sued in the name of the board of trustees. Admittedly, therefore, the present board of trustees is also the body of port trustees. As I read the definition contained in section 3(26) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, the body of port trustees could be regarded as local authority. 7. The contention of Mr. Mandavia that the words "legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with the control or management of a municipal or local fund" must qualify the words 'body of port trustees or commissioners" in my opinion not well-founded. If the contention of Mr. Mandavia is accepted then the words so bracketed will also have to qualify the words, "municipal corporation, municipality or local board." It is not open to find out whether every municipal corporation is entitled to the control and management of municipal fund; similarly, it is not open to find out whether every local board is entitled to the control and management of a local fund. Every organisation that has been specifically m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act of 1963 to control and manage the fund which it is entitled to raise and receive under the provisions of the Act itself. The question is whether it is a local fund. 9. The phrase "local fund" has not been defined under the General Clauses Act or under any other Act. In Union of India v. R.C. Jain, (1981)ILLJ402SC, on which Mr. Mandavia places reliance in another context and to which I will refer briefly, the question arose as to what would constitute a local fund. The Supreme Court was concerned with the interpretation of section 23 of the Delhi Development Act under which the Delhi Development Authority was constituted. Examining the said provision, the Supreme Court mentioned as follows :--- "It cannot be said that the fund of the Authority, required to be maintained by section 23 of the Delhi Development Act, is not a local fund as no part of it flowed directly from any taxing power vested in the Delhi Development Authority. When it is said that one of the attributes of a local authority is the power to raise funds by the method of taxation, taxation is to be understood not in any fine and narrow sense as to include only those compulsory exactions of mone....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contention is misconceived. If the definition of the local authority mentions specifically and not in a generic way the body of port trustees, then the question as to whether that body could possess certain attributes of a local authority is totally irrelevant. In the case before the Supreme Court the question was whether the Delhi Development Authority was a local authority. Delhi development Authority is not mentioned in section 3(31) of the Central General Clauses Act which was applicable to the case before the Supreme Court. The question, therefore, arose as to whether it was a local authority as mentioned in the said provision in the Central Act. While considering that question the Supreme Court noticed that a body to be called a local authority must possess certain attributes. When a particular body, such as municipality or a local board or a body of port trustees has been specifically mentioned in the definition, the question of finding out whether it possesses any attributes as mentioned in the section does not arise at all. 12. Mr. Mandavia's reliance on another judgment of the Supreme Court, namely the one in Valjibhai Muljibhai Sonaji v. The State of Bombay A.I.R....