Kerala HC Rejects Advocate’s Plea To Exempt Office Attached To Residential House From Determination Of Plinth Area U/S 6 Kerala Building Tax Act
The Kerala High Court rejected an advocate’s Writ appeal to exempt the office attached to his residential house from the determination of plinth area under Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.
The Court held thus while observing that the words 'for any non-residential purpose' used in the proviso has to be read 'ejusdem generis' to the preceding words, i.e., 'use for storage of firewood, garage etc.' and it cannot be stretched to include a study or office room.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed, “words 'for any non-residential purpose' used in the proviso has to be read 'ejusdem generis' to the preceding words, i.e., 'use for storage of firewood, garage etc.' and that it cannot be stretched to include a study or office room.”
Advocate R. Suraj Kumar appeared for the Appellant and Advocate V.K.Shamsudheen appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The appellant Abdul Jabbar, an advocate, owns a residential building in the respondent Panchayath. In 2013, he was assessed a building tax of Rs. 10,000/-, including Rs. 6,000/- in luxury tax, based on a plinth area measurement of 292.07 sq. meters. The appellant disputed this measurement, arguing that a ground floor room intended for use as a study/office should have been excluded under Section 6 of the Act. He appealed but his appeal was dismissed. A subsequent revision was also dismissed. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition filed by him.
In Writ Appeal, the Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in K.C.Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board & ors. [2023 SCC Online SC 663] and quoted, “The rule of 'ejusdem generis' is a principle of construction. The rule is that when general words follow particular and specific words of the same nature, the general words must be confined to the things of the same kind as those specified . It applies when the following ingredients are present: (i) the statute contains an enumeration of specific words; (ii) the subjects of enumeration constitute a class or category; (iii) that category is not exhausted by the enumeration; (iv) a general term follows the enumeration; and (v) there is no indication of a different legislative intent.”
The Court further mentioned the decision in Ayshakunji v. Tahsildar (2012 (4) KLT 193) and quoted, “In fact, every professional like doctor, lawyer, chartered accountant, architect etc., retains office in their own residential building. There may also be cases of partial letting of residential house for non residential purpose. However, non residential use of a portion of a residential building does not affect its identity or character as a residential building.”
The Court said that given Ayshakunji's case (supra), the contention of the appellant that proviso to Section 6 exempts from the calculation of the plinth area of a residential building, a garage or any other erection or structure appurtenant to a residential building used for storage of firewood or any non-residential purpose and hence the study/office of the appellant who is an Advocate in the residential building qualifies within the said exemptions in the proviso, cannot be countenanced.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Writ Appeal.
Cause Title: Abdul Jabbar v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER: 35380)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. R. Suraj Kumar, Adv. Sajith C. George, Adv. Anjana R.S., Adv. Sunil J. Chakkaalackal, Adv. N.G. Sindhu and Adv. Sunitha G.
Respondent: Adv. V.K. Shamsudheen, Sr. Government Pleader