1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is one brought to have it, declared that the Municipal tax imposed on a certain building is illegal and also for a refund of the amount realized from the plaintiff as municipal and latrine taxes.
2. The facts of the case are these. The plaintiff is the naib of the Maharaja of Mymensingh, and, as such, occupies a small house adjoining, the kacheri of the Maharaja. The Municipality have assessed him with municipal taxes on the ground that the house in which he resides and its site form a separate holding from the kacheri house belonging to the Maharaja, on which a separate assessment has been made.
3. The learned Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion, first, that the house occupied by the plaintiff and the kacheri house are one holding, and secondly, that the plaintiff is not the occupier of the house in which he resides within the meaning of Section 85 of the Municipal Act, but that the occupier is the Maharaja of Mymensinh. For these reasons, he has given the plaintiff a decree.
4. The Chairman of the Bajitpur Municipality now appeals to this Court and contends that the Subordinate Judge is wrong on both points.
5. In support of his contention that the Subordinate Judge is wrong on the first point, he calls our attention to Clause (3) of Section 6 of the Municipal Act, in which the term holding' is defined, and in which it is also said that 'provided that where two or more adjoining holdings form part and parcel of the site or premises of a dwelling-house, manufactory, werehouse, or place of trade or business, such holdings shall be deemed to be one holding for the purposes of this Act, other than those mentioned in Clause (a) of Section eighty-five,' Now, it is pointed out that the assessment which is disputed in this suit has been made under Clause (a) of Section 85, and that, therefore, the learned Subordinate Judge, in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff's house and the kacheri house of the Maharaja are one holding, has fallen into a mistake. They may be one holding for purposes other than those mentioned in Clause (a) of Section 85; but they are not one holding for the purposes of the assessment which has been made in this suit.
6. We think that this contention has considerable force. But it is unnecessary for us to come to any definite finding on this point, because we think that the decision of the Subordinate Judge on the second point, which is impugned on this appeal, is right. The Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiff is not the occupier of the house in question, because he is only the naib of the Maharaja and is residing in it in his capacity of servant of the Maharaja. He does not pay any rent for the house and is not a permanent occupier but can be removed at the Maharaja's pleasure. We, therefore, think that the Subordinate Judge has rightly held that the occupier of the house is the Maharaja, and not the plaintiff. That being so, the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, in our opinion, upon the whole is right; and we dismiss this appeal with costs.