{"id":24961,"date":"2004-03-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004"},"modified":"2018-03-20T01:46:04","modified_gmt":"2018-03-19T20:16:04","slug":"the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"The Municipal Corporation vs Govindasamy Naidu Hospital on 15 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Municipal Corporation vs Govindasamy Naidu Hospital on 15 March, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 15\/03\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice K.GOVINDARAJAN\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice N.KANNADASAN\n\nL.P.A.No.210 of 1999\n\n\nThe Municipal Corporation-\nof Coimbatore by its Commissioner,\n(Coimbatore Municipality, 1st defendant\nwas constituted as a Corporation under\nAct, 25 of 1981.)                       ... Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nGovindasamy Naidu Hospital,\n(K.G.Hospital) by its\nGovindasamy Naidu Trust,\nrep. by its Managing Trustee,\nK.Govindasamy.                          ... Respondent\n\n        Prayer:  Appeal against the Judgment and  decree  dated  21.7.1998  in\nA.S.No.342 of 1985 and A.S.No.588 of 1986 on the file of this Court.\n\n\n!For Appellant : Mr. G. Masilamani\n                for Mr.R.Sivakumar\n^For Respondent:   Mr. S.S. Sundar\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
N.KANNADASAN,J.\n<\/p>\n
        The  appellant  herein  is  the  appellant  in  A.S.No.342 of 1985 and
\nrespondent in A.S.588 of 1986 and defendant  in  the  suit.    The  respondent
\nherein is  the  respondent in A.S.No.342 of 1985 and appellant in A.S.  No.588
\nof 1986 and the plaintiff in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The suit  is  filed  by  the  plaintiff  viz.,  Kovindasamy  Naidu
\nHospital,  which  is  administered  by  K.Govidasamy  Naidu  Medical  Trust  (
\nhereinafter  called  as  the  Trust),  which  is  a  public  Charitable  Trust
\nconstituted under  the  deed of Trust dated 27.3.1974.  The Trust was found to
\nserve the public by  providing  medical  relief  to  the  general  public,  by
\nestablishing Hospital, Surgical Homes, Nursing Homes etc.  The plaintiff comes
\nwithin  the  scope  of  definition of Section 86(e) of the Tamil Nadu District
\nMunicipalities Act,1920 (hereinafter after called as the Act),  by  construing
\nit as Charitable Hospital and hence eligible for exemption from payment of the
\nproperty tax.    However,  the  said  benefit  was  not  extended to it by the
\ndefendant in spite of repeated pleas.  In fact, the plaintiff has availed  the
\nexemption  from  payment  of  property  tax  in  pursuance  of  the Coimbatore
\nMunicipal Council Resolution 693 dated 18.6.1980 with effect from 1.4.1980 and
\nby later resolution No.1121 dated 23.7.1980, the defendant has  cancelled  the
\nearlier resolution   for   mala   fide  and  extraneous  reasons.    The  said
\ncancellation is also illegal as no opportunity of hearing was given before the
\nsaid cancellation, which is violative of the fundamental principles of natural
\njustice.  In spite of several representations submitted by the  plaintiff,  no
\norder  was  passed  by  the  defendant even though the plaintiff satisfies the
\nscope and ambit of Section 86(e) of  the  Act  and  Section  123  (e)  of  the
\nCoimbatore City  Municipal Corporation Act, 1981.  In fact, the Trust has been
\nrecognised as Charitable Institution for the purpose of the provisions of  the
\nIncome-tax  Act,  1961  and availed Customs Duty exemption for the purchase of
\nmedical equipment.  Due to inaction on the part of the defendant, the suit  is
\nfiled  to declare the plaintiff as Charitable Trust to seek exemption from the
\nproperty tax and to direct the defendant to repay the amount already collected
\nby way of property tax for the period subsequent  to  1.4.1978  and  to  grant
\npermanent injunction restraining the defendant from recovery of any arrears.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The suit  was  resisted  by  the  defendant  contending  that  the
\nproperty  tax  was  imposed  after carrying out inspection of the premises and
\nduring such inspection, it came to light that  rents  are  collected  for  the
\nrooms and  fees  also  collected from the patients.  It is also contended that
\nthe plaintiff hospital cannot be construed as Charitable Hospital  within  the
\nmeaning  of  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Act referred to above and the
\ncancellation of the earlier resolution in withdrawing the  tax  exemption  was
\ndone in accordance with law and the suit is barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  The suit was decreed in respect of declaration, injunction and for
\nrecovery  of  a  sum  of  Rs.36,002.80, but however, relief was not granted in
\nrespect of the tax which was collected for the period prior  to  18.6.1977  as
\nbarred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   Aggrieved against the Judgment and decree of the trial court, the
\nappellant\/defendant filed A.S.No.342 of 1985  and  the  plaintiff\/  respondent
\nfiled A.S.No.588 of 1986 in respect of the portion of the decree which was not
\ngranted.   Before  the learned single Judge, the appeal filed by the plaintiff
\nin A.S.No.588 of 1986 was not pressed and accordingly the same  was  dismissed
\nas not  pressed.    However,  the  appeal  filed by the appellant\/defendant in
\nA.S.No.342 of 1985 was dismissed on merits by  a  Judgment  and  decree  dated
\n21.7.1998.  Against which the defendant has filed the present L.P.A.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   The  learned  senior  counsel  Mr.G.Masilamani, appearing for the
\nappellant\/defendant has contended that  the  plaintiff-hospital  is  receiving
\nincome and collecting rent for the rooms and the patients are being charged by
\nway of fees and as such the exemption claimed by the plaintiff for the payment
\nof property  tax  cannot  be  granted.   He further contended that the fact of
\navailing exemption under the Income-tax Act as well as the payment of  Customs
\nDuty  will not ensure benefit in respect of payment of property tax, since the
\nrelevant provisions of the said  Acts  cannot  be  treated  on  par  with  the
\nprovisions  pertaining  to  the  grant of exemption of payment of property tax
\nunder the above said two Acts.  The learned senior counsel  further  contended
\nthat  the  plaintiff  has  not  established  the  fact that it is a Charitable
\nHospital within the meaning of the Act, except pleading in this regard in  the
\nplaint  as well as the assertion during the oral evidence adduced on behalf of
\nthe plaintiff.  The learned single Judge of this Court as well  as  the  trial
\njudge  have  overlooked the material evidence on record, more particularly the
\nevidence adduced before the trial court which discloses that the  hospital  is
\nnot providing free treatment even to 10% of the patients.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   Per  contra, the learned counsel for the respondent\/plaintiff has
\nsubmitted that the trial court as well as the  appellate  court  have  rightly
\nfound  that  the  plaintiff is a Charitable Hospital within the meaning of the
\nSection 83 (e) of the Act and 123 (e) of the City Municipal  Corporation  Act.
\nThe  learned  counsel for the respondent contended that a perusal of the Trust
\ndeed discloses that the main object of the Trust  is  to  promote,  establish,
\nadminister  the  hospitals,  Surgical  Homes  and  Nursing Homes for providing
\nmedical relief to the needy people.  It is further contended that none of  the
\ntrustees  are  enjoying  any  profit of the hospital and the necessary audited
\nstatement was marked as Exhibits before the trial court.  It is contended that
\nthe Trust has been recognised as Charitable Institution for the purpose of the
\nprovisions of the Income tax Act, 1961 and availed Customs Duty exemption  for
\nthe purchase  of certain medical equipment.  He has further contended that the
\nhospital was rightly granted exemption initially by a resolution No.693  dated
\n18.6.1980  with  effect  from  1.4.1980  but  subsequently  for  mala fide and
\nextraneous reasons the same was cancelled  by  subsequent  resolution  No.1121
\ndated 23.7.1980.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  The point for consideration is whether the plaintiff\/respondent is
\nentitled for the exemption from the payment of property tax within the meaning
\nof  Section  83(e)  of  the  Tamil  Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and
\nSection 123(e) of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 ?\n<\/p>\n
        9.  We have considered the rival contentions of the parties.    Before
\nwe  proceed  to deal with the legal submissions with reference to the relevant
\nprovisions of the Act, it would be useful  to  find  out  as  to  whether  the
\nplaintiff\/respondent has proved its case to the effect that it is a Charitable
\nInstitution within  the  meaning  of the Act.  A perusal of Exhibit A-12 dated
\n14.5.1979, which is  an  application  submitted  by  the  plaintiff\/respondent
\ndiscloses several  particulars  about  the hospital.  In the said application,
\nEx.A-12 it is admitted that the details relating to the  number  of  patients,
\nout-patients as well as inpatients who have been treated free of charges or at
\nconcessional rates,  have  not  been  maintained.    The  relevant  portion is
\nextracted here under:\n<\/p>\n
        “At the beginning detailed records about the patients who were treated
\nfree or at concessional rates  were  not  maintained.    We  wanted  to  avoid
\nunnecessary  paper  work,  expenditure on employment of non-medical personnel,
\nand delay in treatment and discharge of the patients.  …      There  are  no
\nstandard  procedure  or  guidelines  of  maintenance  of Hospital accounts and
\npatient statistics.  We had to learn by trial  and  error,  and  we  now  have
\ndetailed statistics.  …..\n<\/p>\n
        Most  patients  knowing that the Hospital is run by a Charitable Trust
\nvolunteer to pay their fees as donations to the Trust.  As long as the  amount
\nthey  pay  equal  or  more than the amount payable as fees to the hospital, we
\nreceive their payments as donation.  Many times the donation amount  was  much
\nhigher  than  the  fees,  and  the  Trust  and Hospital gained by accepting as
\ndonation….\n<\/p>\n
        It has also been our endeavour to charge a patient at least a  nominal
\nfee, because anything received grant is not valued…\n<\/p>\n
        A  perusal  of the above discloses that most of the patients volunteer
\nto pay their fees as donations to the trust.  If the  said  statement  of  the
\nplaintiff  is  accepted,  it  should have produced documents in support of the
\nsame before the trial Court.  Inasmuch as it is specifically  mentioned  that,
\non  several  occasions,  the  donation  amount  was  higher than the fees, the
\nplaintiff would have  maintained  registers  indicating  what  is  the  amount
\nearmarked for  donation  and  what  is  the amount earmarked for fees.  In the
\nabsence of production of any convincing documentary evidence, we do not  agree
\nthat  what  ever  amount paid by the patients are received as donations by the
\ntrust.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  Further, Ex.A.12 furnishes the details relating to the number  of
\npatients,  who  have  obtained  full  concession of fees and who have obtained
\npartial concession of fees and who have paid their charges in full.  A perusal
\nof the concession extended by the hospital to the patients with the total fees
\ndue to  the  hospital  for  the  period  from  197  7-78  indicates  that  the
\nconcessions so extended did not exceed more than 25%.  If we consider that the
\nabove details reflects the true facts, the fact of extending concession to the
\npatients  is  far  less  than  the  actual  amount  representing the fees due.
\nSimilarly, the figures pertaining to number of patients treated free of charge
\nis far less when compared to the patients who were treated  on  collection  of
\nfees.   One  of the enclosures to Ex.A-13 dated 7.6.1980 which is a resolution
\nof the Trust discloses that the desire of Sri.  K.Govindasamy  Naidu,  founder
\ntrustee  for  providing absolute free medical treatment should be achieved and
\nat least 25% of the patients  both  in-patients  and  out-patients  should  be
\ntreated at  concessional  rates and token fee could be charged.  Thus, even as
\nper the plaintiff’s  resolution,  it  is  admitted  that  the  hospital  would
\nendeavour  to  collect  concessional  and  token  fees to the extent of 25% of
\npatient only, which suggests that even the  said  minimum  percentage  of  the
\npatients are not given free treatment in entirety.      11.   A perusal of the
\nevidence adduced by P.W.1  during  his  crossexamination  discloses  that  the
\nplaintiff hospital  has  been  used  to  collect  room  rents.  He has further
\ndeposed that out of 86 rooms, only one room is earmarked  for  poor  patients.
\nHe  has  also  admitted that the hospital has not displayed either in its name
\nboard or otherwise that it would give free treatment for poor people.  In  the
\nlight  of  the above evidence also, we are not convinced that the hospital has
\nto be construed as a charitable hospital within the meaning  of  the  relevant
\nprovisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   The trial Court by referring to the order granting tax exemption
\nby the Income Tax  Department  under  Ex.A.28  and  A.29;  Audited  statements
\nproduced  in  Ex.A.26  and  A.27;  Duty exemption granted under Customs Act in
\nEx.A.31 to A.34 has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is a  charitable
\nhospital.   The  trial  Court  has  overlooked the facts that in Ex.A.31 which
\ncontains the condition for grant of Customs  Duty  exemption,  it  is  clearly
\nindicated  that  the hospital should provide free treatment to the out-patient
\nat least to the extent of 40%.  A further condition is also imposed  that  the
\nhospital  should  provide  free treatment to all the in-patients whose monthly
\nincome is less than Rs.300\/-.  It further proceeds that 10% of the beds should
\nbe provided to the in-patients whose monthly income is below Rs.300\/-.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  Even though the trial Court has referred to the above Exhibit, it
\nhas miserably failed to take note of the oral evidence  deposed  by  P.W.1  as
\nwell  as  Ex.A.12, which makes it clear that the conditions set out in Ex.A.31
\nare not satisfied.  As regards the tax exemption granted  by  the  income  tax
\ndepartment  and  the  customs department, the provisions contained in the said
\nAct  cannot  be  equated  on  par  with  the  provisions   under   which   the
\nplaintiff\/respondent is claiming tax exemption.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 proceeds as here under:
\n        “A  Charitable purpose includes relief of the poor, education, medical
\nrelief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility.”\n<\/p>\n
        The scope of the above provision discloses that it has wider  meaning,
\nmore  particularly when a reference is made about the advancement of any other
\nobject of general public utility.  Similarly, Section 25 of the  Customs  Act,
\n1962 enables the Central nment to exempt payment of duty on such conditions as
\nmay  be  prescribed,  if  the  central  Government satisfies itself to pass an
\norder.  However, Section 86(e) of the District Municipalities Act, and  123(e)
\nof the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act proceeds as follows:
\n“Charitable hospitals and dispensaries, but not including residential quarters
\nattached thereto”.\n<\/p>\n
        Thus,  in  the  absence of any similarity of the other provisions when
\ncompared with the provision under which the property tax exemption is  sought,
\nthe trial  Court  is  not correct in accepting the plea of the plaintiff.  The
\ntrial Court has further  proceeds  on  the  basis  that  the  trust  has  been
\nestablished  for  serving public and it was not established for the benefit of
\nthe founders or the trustees.  The above reasoning of the trial Court  is  not
\nsustainable  inasmuch  as  the  plaintiff  has  not  established  that it is a
\ncharitable hospital within the meaning of the Act  and  the  recitals  in  the
\nTrust Deed cannot be considered as a conclusive proof.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   Similarly, the appellate Court has confirmed the findings of the
\ntrial Court by overlooking several aspects as stated  already.    The  learned
\nJudge  by referring to Ex.B.2 that there is no column pertaining to “Rent” has
\ncome to the conclusion that the hospital is a charitable one.  A reference  is
\nmade to the effect that the hospital can be construed as a charitable hospital
\non the  basis of the registers and Ex.B.2 receipt.  The learned Judge has also
\naccepted the other reasoning adduced by the  trial  Court  for  the  grant  of
\ndecree.   The  learned Judge has overlooked the evidence deposed by P.W.1, the
\nvarious details set out in Ex.A.12 and A.13, which suggest that  the  hospital
\nis  collecting  rent  and  free  treatment is not given even to the extent 10%
\npatients and only an endeavour is made in future to give treatment that too at
\nconcessional rates to an extent of 25% of the patients only.  The trial  Court
\nas  well as the appellate Court have not discussed about the evidence of P.W.1
\nas well as contends of Ex.A.12 and A.13.        16.  As regards the  grant  of
\nexemption  which  was  ordered  in  Resolution  No.693  dated  18.06.1980  and
\nsubsequent cancellation in Resolution No.1121 dated 23.07.1980  is  concerned,
\nno motive  was established as against the appellant\/defendant Corporation.  It
\ncannot be suggested that the appellant do not  have  powers  to  withdraw  the
\nearlier  resolution when it is noticed at a later date that a hospital did not
\nsatisfy the requirement of all charitable hospital.   Moreover  no  prayer  is
\nsought for setting aside the resolution dated 23.07.1980 in the suit.    17.
\nThe  trial  Court  as  well  as  the  appellate Court have failed to take into
\naccount the power of taxation of a municipal authority\/  Corporation.    Every
\nmunicipality is a local self-Government and in order to sustain itself a power
\nof taxation has been delegated to municipal bodies.  The taxes are local taxes
\nfor local  needs.    Such  tax  must obviously differ from one municipality to
\nanother.  It is impossible  for  the  Legislature  to  pass  statute  for  the
\nimposition of  such  taxes  in  local  areas.    In  a  democratic set up, the
\nmunicipality which need the proceeds of  these  taxes  for  carrying  out  the
\nprojects   to   the  public,  it  would  be  but  proper  to  leave  to  these
\nmunicipalities the power to impose and collect taxes.  The  local  authorities
\ndo not act as Legislature when they impose tax, but they do so, as an agent of
\nState Legislature.   The power and extent of these powers must be found in the
\nstatute which create  them  such  powers.    Local  bodies  being  subordinate
\nbranches  of Governmental activities or democratic institutions managed by the
\nrepresentatives of the people.  They function for public purposes.  They  bear
\nthe  burden  of  the Government affairs in local areas as they are required to
\ncarry on the required local selfGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  In the light of the delegation of taxation  power  to  the  local
\nbodies,  the  Supreme Court made a clear distinction with regard to the ruling
\narising out of income tax in its decision rendered in Municipal Corporation of
\nDelhi Vs.  Children Book Trust (1992)3 SCC 390).    The  relevant  portion  is
\nextracted here under:\n<\/p>\n
        “The  rulings  arising  out of Income Tax Act may not be of great help
\nbecause in the Income Tax Act “charitable purpose’ includes the relief of  the
\npoor,  education,  medical  relief  and the advancement of any other object of
\ngeneral public utility.  The Advancement of any other object of general public
\nutility is not found under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.”\n<\/p>\n
After observing as above, the Apex Court has held that the municipal tax being
\nan annual tax, the liability of tax must be determined with reference to  each
\nyear.   It  is  also observed that the society claiming exemption will have to
\nshow that it fulfils the condition for exemption each year.    It  is  finally
\nconcluded  therein  that  the test to be applied is not merely qualitative but
\nquantitative as well.\n<\/p>\n
        19.   The  Supreme Court in its decision rendered in Indian Chamber of
\nCommerce Vs.  C.I.T., West Bengal  II,  Calcutta  (1976)  1  SCC  324),  while
\nholding  that  the  income  of  the  Indian Chamber of Commerce as taxable has
\nobserved as follows:    “The interpretation of the  provision  must  naturally
\nfall in  line  with  the  advancement  of  the  object.   Of course, there are
\nborderline cases where it becomes difficult to decide at first  sight  whether
\nthe  undertaking  which  yields  profit  is  a deceptive device or a bona fide
\nadventure which results in nominal  surplus  although  substantially  intended
\nonly to advance the charitable object.”\n<\/p>\n
        If we apply the above interpretation, then the respondent\/plaintiff do
\nnot  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  relevant provision of the Act to claim
\nproperty tax exemption.\n<\/p>\n
        20.  The Supreme Court in its decision rendered in Carmel  Book  Stall
\nVs.   Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (1994 Supp(3) Supreme Court Cases 241),
\nhas held that the onus of proof viz., the profit was utilised  for  charitable
\npurposes rest  with  the individual who claims it.  Admittedly, in the present
\ncase, the said burden of proof was not discharged by the plaintiff\/respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        21. Similarly, the Supreme Court in its decision rendered in Indian  Red Cross Society Vs. New Delhi Municipal Commit
\n4 (SC)), has held that the statute exemption from property tax under the said Act was not available to a charitable society i
\nbuilding is not self-occupied, but is rented out even if such rental income is used for charitable purposes.  In the present
\nalready, the plaintiff hospital is collecting rent as admitted by P.W.1 and as such  it cannot claim exemption.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  The learned counsel for the respondent strongly relies  upon  the
\nobservation   of   Supreme  Court  in  its  decision  rendered  in  Additional
\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs.  Surat Art  Silk  Cloth  Manufacturers
\nAssociation  (AIR  1980  SC  387), to the effect that the activity involved in
\ncarrying out the  charitable  purpose  must  not  be  motivated  by  a  profit
\nobjective,  but  it  must  be  undertaken  for  the  purpose of advancement or
\ncarrying out the charitable purpose.  By relying the  above  observation,  the
\nlearned  counsel  has  contended  that  inasmuch as the ultimate object of the
\nplaintiff\/respondent is nothing but a charitable purpose, it is  entitled  for
\nexemption and the mere collection of rent as well as the charging of fees from
\nthe  patients  cannot  be construed that the hospital is not a charitable one.
\nWe do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent in
\nview of the fact that the Supreme Court  in  the  said  case  has  rendered  a
\nfinding that the activity of obtaining licences for import of foreign yarn and
\ncloths and  for  the purchase of indigenous yarn was not an act of profit.  It
\nwas further held that the  predominant  activity  was  for  the  promotion  of
\nCommerce and  Trade.   In the light of the specific finding as stated therein,
\nthe observation, which  was  relied  upon  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the
\nrespondent has no application to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
        23.   The  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent also relied upon the
\ndecision of the Supreme Court in Christian Children Fund Inc.  Vs.   Municipal
\nCorporation of  Delhi  and  Others  (1994)4 SCC 337).  In our opinion the said
\ndecision is not helpful to the respondent\/defendant, in view of the fact  that
\nthe  Supreme Court has rendered in the said Judgment by taking out of the fact
\nthat there  was  no  dispute  that  the  said  organisation  is  a  charitable
\norganisation  and  the  dispute  involved  was denial of exemption on the only
\nground that the premises in question was used by the said organisation for its
\noffice.  Hence, the above Judgment has no application to the case on hand.\n<\/p>\n
        24.   Similarly,  the  other decision cited by the learned counsel for
\nthe respondent viz., Victoria Technical Institute Vs.  Additional Commissioner
\nof Income Tax, Madras and another (AIR  1991  SC  997),  and  Commissioner  of
\nIncome T  ax,  Bombay  City, Bombay Vs.  Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust (AIR
\n1955 BOMBAY 250) are not applicable to the facts of the present case  in  view
\nof  the fact that the said decisions were rendered under the provisions of the
\nincome tax.\n<\/p>\n
        25.  Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondent  the
\ndecision of this Court rendered in S.N.R.Sons Charitable Trust, Coimbatore Vs.
\nThe  Commissioner,  Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore (1993(2)
\nLW 100), which has no application to the present case in view of  the  reasons
\nthat  the  Division  Bench  has considered the issue therein as to whether the
\nbenefit of exemption can be denied on the sole ground that the  payments  made
\nby  the  patients  to  the  hospital should be construed as rent or not and on
\nfacts it was held that the payments made therein cannot be  treated  as  rent.
\nIn  the instant case, there is a specific admission on behalf of the plaintiff
\nin the oral evidence of P.W.1 that rents are being collected.  Further, in the
\nabove mentioned decision  on  facts  it  was  held  that  the  hospital  as  a
\ncharitable hospital.\n<\/p>\n
        26.  For the foregoing  reasons,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the
\nplaintiff\/respondent  cannot  be construed as a charitable hospital within the
\nmeaning of Section 86(e) of the District Municipalities Act,1920  and  Section
\n123(e) of  the  Coimbatore  City Municipal Corporation Act, 1 981.  Therefore,
\nthe Judgment and the decree of the appellate Court confirming the Judgment and
\ndecree of the trial Court is set aside and the suit is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        27.  The above Letter Patent Appeal is allowed.  However there will be
\nno order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:yes
\nInternet:yes
\nks\/ksr<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Municipal Corporation vs Govindasamy Naidu Hospital on 15 March, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 15\/03\/2004 CORAM The Honourable Mr. Justice K.GOVINDARAJAN and The Honourable Mr. Justice N.KANNADASAN L.P.A.No.210 of 1999 The Municipal Corporation- of Coimbatore by its Commissioner, (Coimbatore Municipality, 1st defendant was constituted as a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24961","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Municipal Corporation vs Govindasamy Naidu Hospital on 15 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Municipal Corporation vs Govindasamy Naidu Hospital on 15 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-19T20:16:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Municipal Corporation vs Govindasamy Naidu Hospital on 15 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-19T20:16:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3842,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004\",\"name\":\"The Municipal Corporation vs Govindasamy Naidu Hospital on 15 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-19T20:16:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Municipal Corporation vs Govindasamy Naidu Hospital on 15 March, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Municipal Corporation vs Govindasamy Naidu Hospital on 15 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Municipal Corporation vs Govindasamy Naidu Hospital on 15 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-19T20:16:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Municipal Corporation vs Govindasamy Naidu Hospital on 15 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-19T20:16:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004"},"wordCount":3842,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004","name":"The Municipal Corporation vs Govindasamy Naidu Hospital on 15 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-19T20:16:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-municipal-corporation-vs-govindasamy-naidu-hospital-on-15-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Municipal Corporation vs Govindasamy Naidu Hospital on 15 March, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24961","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24961"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24961\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}