J. Krishna Row vs The President Municipal Corporation

Ayling, J.—In my opinion the three phrases ""kept,"" ""let out for hire"" and ""used"" in Section 150 of the Madras City Municipal Act are

employed distinctively, and the word ""kept"" is not qualified by the words ""for hire."" If the mere possession of a car which is never used does not

bring the possessor within the scope of Section 150, it is difficult to imagine what is the object of the exemption clause, Section 151(f).

I can see no ground for holding that a car ceases to be ""kept"" within the meaning of Section 150, because it is under repair and for that reason

unfit for immediate use.

I would set aside the order of the Magistrates cancelling the tax and ordering refund.

Napier, J.

I agree. Three points are argued. First, that a car under repair is not a vehicle. I cannot take this argument seriously. Second, that the word

kept"" must be read with the words ""for hire,"" and private persons who do not use for thirty days are not taxable. Section 151(f) clearly negatives

this argument. Thirdly, that as the owner had not the car in his possession, he was not ""keeping."" The section does not require the car to be in the

possession of the owner. Any vehicle that is under some one''s control is undoubtedly kept.

It has not been argued that if it was kept the owner need not pay and the argument would be impossible as long as the owner had control--vide

Section 150(2) of the Madras city Municipal Act. The assessment by the Corporation is correct.