Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay V. Royal Western India Turf Club [1967] INSC 207 (13 September 1967)
13/09/1967 SHELAT, J.M.
SHELAT, J.M.
SHAH, J.C.
SIKRI, S.M.
CITATION: 1968 AIR 425 1968 SCR (1) 625
CITATOR INFO:
D 1974 SC1779 (16)
ACT:
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act III of 1888,
s. 154-Scopeof-Determination of annual rateable value-Nature of deductions that
can be allowed when profits basis method used.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent club ran a race course and had
built certain structures on land in Bombay which it had leased from the
appellant corporation at an annual rent of Rs. 3.75 lakhs.
It had obtained a licence from the State
Government to hold race meetings on its course in Bombay as well as on another
course owned by it in Poona for which 'it had paid a licence fee of Rs. 13
lakhs for the relevant I year and had apportioned the fee in the ratio of 2: 1
between the Bombay and the Poona courses.
For assessment of the correct rateable value
of the property for the rating year 1954-55 the assessing authority made an
assessment by the profits basis method on the basis of the Club's accounts for
the year 1953-54 and, in doing so, disallowed certain expenses claimed by the
Club in determining the net rateable value at Rs. 11,90,187. The respondent
club thereupon' filed an appeal before the small Causes Court under s. 217 of
the Act and although that Court made a few adjustments, it held the Club had
failed to prove that the net rateable value determined by the assessing
authority was excessive. The High Court however, in appeal, upheld the Club's
objections as regards the disallowance of several items of expenditure and held
that the gross annual value of the property would, after the deductions to be
allowed, come to Rs. 2,15,750; and after deducting therefrom the statutory
allowance of 10 percent under s. 154 on account of allowances for repairs etc.,
the net annual value would come to Rs. 1,94,175.
In the appeal to this Court it was contended
on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, (i) that the 10 percent statutory
deduction allowed by s. 154(1) covers all expenses for repairs and therefore
deduction of costs of repairs and upkeep of the course, if allowed, would mean
a duplicate deduction; (ii) that the totalisator maintained by the Club being
'machinery, its value was not to be included in rating under s.154(2); (iii)
that the Club wag entitled to a deduction of-only half of the licence fee
apportioned to the Bombay Course because that fee covered dual purpose i.e. for
the premises as a race course and for permission to conduct race meetings on
the race course; for the first the burden would be on the lessor and for the
second on the tenant;
that this was borne out by the scheme of the
Bombay Race Courses Licencing Act 3 of 1912 which was to licence the premises
and then to licence the person who runs races on such premises; and (iv) that
if the expenses claimed were allowed to be deducted, the net rateable value
arrived at would be less than the actual rent of Rs. 3,75,000 payable by the
Club to the Corporation and that such a result cannot be contemplated under any
method of assessing the rateable value.
HELP: Dismissing the appeal:
(i)The expenses in question were for the
maintenance in good repair of the race-track which is the source of 526
receipts earned by teh Club. Disbursements for the upkeep of the course and all
its adjuncts consequently are proper out-goings incurred for earning the
receipts. They are not the landlord's obligation and are not part of or
included in teh statutory deduction of 10 percent in s. 154(1), which is, in
lieu of, the cost of repairs, insurance, etc.
incurred by the lessor. The High Court was
therefore right in deducting such expenses from the gross receipts.
(ii) Similarly the expenses incurred for the
upkeep and repair of the total is a tor were incurred on an adjunct necessary
to an efficient race course and must necessarily be regarded as the outgoings
of the business. The contention that as it was machinery its value could not be
included in, rating tinder s. 154(2) had no merit.
(iii) The High Court had rightly allowed the
deduction of the entire amount of expenditure in connection with the cost of
sand and morum, salaries and charges of employees, motor lorry expenses, stores
and charges for maintenance of horses 'and bullocks, manure and garden
expenses, spares of tractors and other machinery and the wheel tax and water
tax. The distribution of these expenses between the tenant and the landlord
made by the assessing authority and the small Cause Court could not be
sustained on the ground that race meetings were held in Bombay only for Part of
the year.
There was nothing to show that the lessor had
to maintain the track during the time when race meetings were not held in
Bombay.
The measure in arriving at the net rateable
value under s. 154(1) is what a hypothetical tenant would pay as rent and that
would depend upon the amount of profits earned from race-meetings held on the
race course. To arrive at the correct amount of such profit all expenses
reasonably and properly incurred which go to the making of the receipts have to
be deducted from the gross-receipts.
[533D] (iv) The licence obtained by the Club
was clearly permission to run race meetings on the two race-courses and not an
instrument licensing the premises as a race course. Since it is the tenant who
would hold the race meetings, the fee, payable for the licence is his burden
and not that of the lessor. Furthermore there was no provision in Bombay Act 3
of 1912 to warrant the construction that the licence obtained under s. 4 had a
dual purpose as contended. [533H534D] (v) The rateable value need not always be
equal to the actual rent. The measure is what a hypothetical tenant is expected
to pay for a lease from year to year taking the property as it exists with all
its advantages and burdens.
In view of the fact that the Club was only in
exclusive possession of some portions of the land and the remainder 'had to be
kept open to the public except on race days, it was not surprising that the
rateable value came to less than the actual rent. [534H; 535C] R.v. Verall
[1875] Q.B.D. 9, Sanddown Park CAse [1954] 47 R. T. 351 (CA). (quoted in Ryde
on Rating, 11th ed. 523);
Port of London Authority v. Assessment
Committee, [1920] A C. 273 at p. 281, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 15 of 1965.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated
April 15 / 16,1963 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 216of 1961 from
Original Decree.
S. T Desai, 0. P. Malhotra and 0. C. Mathur
for the appellant.
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General and Rameshwar
Nath, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shelat, J. This appeal by certificate obtained from the High Court at Bombay
involves the question as to the true meaning of s. 154 of the Bombay Municipal
Corporation Act, III of 1888 and the correct rateable value to be assessed
thereunder.
The respondent-Club runs two race courses,
one in Bombay and the other at Poona. We are concerned in this appeal with the
Bombay race-course which is comprised of land and certain structures standing
thereon. The said land is the property of the appellant-corporation given on
lease to the Club for a period of 30 years commencing from June 1, 1944 at an
annual rent of Rs. 3,75,000. The said structures thereon have been built by and
belong to the Club. The Club has obtained a licence from the Government of
Maharashtra, permitting the Club to hold racemeetings at both the Courses and
for which it paid a sum of licence fees between the two Courses in the ratio of
2: 1 and thus licence fees between the two Courses in the ratio of 1: 2 and
thus the share of the Bombay Course came to Rs. 8,66,666. The rating year in
question is 1954-55. The assessment was made on the basis of the Club's accounts
for the year 1953-54 that being the year concluded before the assessment.
According to these accounts the gross receipts of the Club came to Rs. 117 lacs
and odd and the expenses . to Rs. 124 lacs and odd; the accounts thus showed a
loss of Rs. 7 lacs and odd. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner who is the
assessing authority disallowed expenses totalling Rs. 22 lacs and odd as having
been wrongly included in the working expenses add 'determined. 13,22,430 as the
gross annual rent and deducting there from the 10 percent deduction allowable
under s. 15.4 of the Act assessed the net rateable value at Rs, 11,90,187. The
respondent-Club thereupon filed an appeal before the Small Cause Court, Bombay,
under s. 217 of the Act. The Club claimed in all 19 items of expenses which
according to it ought to have been allowed. The Club,, however, conceded that
items 1, 2, 4, 5, 15, 16 and 18 were rightly disallowed. The remaining items
were:
3. Bombay Course upkeep and repairs
6. Track sand and Murum
7. Legal charges 528
8. Licence fee
9. Totalisator upkeep and repairs
10. Bombay Course salaries and wages,
11. Motor lorry expenses 12, Grass and
charges for maintenance of horses and bullocks
13. Insurance and garden,expenses
14. Spares for tractors and machinery parts
19. Painting.
Out of these, items 3, 9 and 19 were wholly
disallowed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner while the rest were partially
allowed. As regards Item 19, that is, painting, Counsel for the Club stated
before us that he would not press that item. We are therefore no longer
concerned with that item. The Small Cause Court agreed with the Deputy
Municipal Commissioner in totally disallowing expenses under Items 3 and 9. It
allowed however item 7, that is, legal charges which were disallowed by the
Deputy Municipal Commissioner. Regarding Item 6, the view of the Small Cause
Court was that only 7/12th and not 50 per cent deducted by the assessing
authority ought to have been allowed. It was also of the view that only 7/12th
and not 50 per cent of the expenses under Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 ought to
have been allowed by the assessing authority. As regards the licence fees the
Club had, as aforesaid, allotted Rs. 8,66,666 to the Bombay Race Course. The
Small Cause Court confirmed the deduction of 50 per cent only of this amount
allowed by the assessing authority. So far as water tax and wheel tax were
concerned the, Small cause Court-confirmed the deduction of 3/4th of the these
taxes made by the authority The Small Cause Court held that the pro fits basis
method employed by the assessing authority was properly employed and further
held that the Club had failed to prove that the net rateable value of Rs.
11,90,185 determined by the assessing authority was excessive.
Before the High Court the Club agitated the
same objections.
The High Court was of the view that
considering the unique nature of the use of the premises by the Club, the
proper method for determination of the annual rent was the profits basis method
but upheld the Club's objections as regards the disallowance of the several
items of expenditure. The High Court held that the gross rateable 'value of the
:property would after these deductions be Rs. 2,15,750 and after deducting
there from the statutory deduction of 10 percent.
the net rateable value would come to Rs.
1,94,175 a figure, no doubt, less than the actual annual rent of Rs. 3,75,000
payable by the Club under the said lease. The appellant corporation challenges
the correctness of these deductions allowed by the High Court.
529 Before we proceed to consider the
contentions urged before us on behalf of the Corporation, we may first look at
some of the provisions of the Act. Under s. 139 the Corporation is required to
levy property taxes, tax on vehicles and animals, theatre tax and octroi.
Section 140 provides that property taxes mean water tax, halalkhor-tax and
general tax of not less than 8 per cent. and not more than 26 per cent.
of the rateable value of lands and buildings,
education cess and betterment charges. Section 154 is concerned with the
valuation of property assessable to property taxes and provides how the
rateable value of such property is to be determined. Sub-section (1) runs as
follows:"In order to fix the rateable value of any building or land
assessable to a property tax, there shall be deducted from the amount of the
annual rent for which such land or building might reasonably be expected to let
from year to year a sum equal to ten percentum of the said annual rent and the
said deduction shall be in lieu of all allowances for repairs or on any other
account whatever." The section provides only for the determination of the
annual rent (not the actual rent paid by the tenant) for which such land or
building might reasonably be expected to let from year to year and then to fix
the rateable value after deducting therefrom 10 percent. of such annual rent in
lieu of all allowances for repairs or any other account whatever. The annual
rent has to be worked out on the basis of what a hypothetical tenant would be willing
to pay 'as rent for the premises to a hypothetical landlord who is prepared to
let the premises from year to year as they stand having regard to all the
advantages and disadvantages relating lo Such premises, such as, the situation,
the nature of the property, the obligations and liabilities attached thereto
and other features, if any, which enhance or decrease their value to such a,
tenant. The section simply enjoins upon the Municipal Corporation to determine
the annual rent and the rateable value of the property therefrom but does not
provide for any particular method of rating out of the several well known
methods usually followed in such assessments, such as the comparative method,
the contractor's method, the unit method and profits basis method, that is,
profit-making capacity or valuation by reference to receipts and expenditure.
(See Ry de on Rating 11th ed., 398 and Faraday on Rating, 5th ed. p. 24) The
profits basis method which the assessing authority has adopted in the present
case consists in ascertaining the net annual value -of the premises which has
to be worked out from the profits which are made or which are capable of being
made out of the premises. The gross receipts from the starting point of the
calculation and they are those shown in the assessee's accounts for the account
year concluded last before the making of the proposal. When these have been
ascertained, the next step is to deduct there from the expenses of earning
those receipts, the cost 530 Of repairs, insurance and other expenses necessary
to maintain the premises in a state to command the hypothetical rent. The
remaining balance is divisible between the tenant, that is,, the tenant's
share, the landlord, that is, the hypothetical rent or net annual value and
rates. The tenant's share is often estimated by applying a percentage to the
tenant's capital or it may be directly taken as a proportion of the divisible
balance or by applying a percentage to the receipts. (See Halsbury's Laws of
England, (3rd ed.), Vol. 32, 87-88). It must be remembered that it is not the
profits which are rateable; they serve to indicate the rent at which the
premises might reasonably be expected to let, particularly where profit is the
motive of the hypothetical tenant in taking the here ditament. This method at
one stage used to be adopted in the case of public utilities only. But there
are a number of decisions which show that at a later stage it began to be
employed to other premises also such as foot ball stadia, markets, racecourses,
etc. One of the earliest cases where this method was applied to undertakings
which are not public utilities is the case of R. v. Verall(1) which was a case
of a racecourse. In Sanddown Park Case(2) the Court of Appeal held that in
cases where actual receipts and expenditure are accepted as relevant factors
for the ascertainment of cross value, sums reflecting the tenant's reasonable
profit. risk and interest on capital should be together treated as a charge on
the divisible profits in priority to other deductions. The profits basis method
has also been applied to such premises as grey hound race tracks. Briefly
stated, the profits basis method is no more than a calculation based on the
profit earning capacity of the premises and as stated by Lord Birkenhead L.C.
in Port of London Authority v. Assessment Committee(3):
"By this reckoning the amount of the
gross receipts is ascertained, and from such amount are deducted the expenses
of earning such receipts, the deductions provided, for by statute, interest on
tenant's capital and the estimated amount of tenant's profit. The figure so
ascertained would give the rating authority a valuable indication as to the
rent which the hypothetical tenant would be likely to give for the right to
occupy the hereditament in question and therefore would enable them to form an
opinion as to the correct amount of the net annual value for the purpose of
rating." In the instant case, the profits basis method has been adopted
for the last several years and approved by the Small Causes Court in several
appeals by the respondent-Club. It appears that at one stage the
respondent-Club raised an objection regarding its application to the present
case. We need not go into the comparative merits of the different methods or
into the question whether (1) [1875] Q.B.D. 9.
(2) (1954) 47 R&T 351 (CA) (quoted in
Ryde on Rating. 11th ed.523 (3) [1920] A.C. 273 at p, 281.
531 it can suitably be applied in the present
case-or not, as Counsel for the Club stated before us that he was not pressing
that objection. We therefore proceed on the footing that this method was
properly adopted by the assessing authority. But that does not end the
controversy, for, even. though the principles on which the profits basis method
is worked out are fairly well-understood, there is nevertheless bound to be
controversy in regard to actual working expenses shown in the assessee's
accounts. A question would often arise whether these expenses are the
hypothetical landlord's burden or that of the hypothetical tenant. If they are of
the former class, they cannot obviously be claimed as deductible expenses for
the hypothetical tenant would not take them into account while offering the
rent at which he would take the premises on lease.
We now proceed to examine the contentions in
regard to the items of expenses in controversy in the light of these
principles. The first of these items is Item No. 3 of Rs. 1,07,414 for expenses
for upkeep and repairs of the racecourse. The contention on behalf of the
Municipal Corporation was that the 10 per cent statutory deduction allowed by
s. 154(1) covers all expenses for repairs and there for deduction of costs of
repairs and upkeep, if allowed, would mean a duplicate deduction. Even if 10%
statutory deduction were considered inadequate looking to the present rate of
prices, the legislature has fixed that percentage as a matter of policy and if
it is found to be inequitable or otherwise it is for the legislature and not
for the Court to alter it. The question, however, is not the inadequacy of deduction
allowed in section 154(1) but as to which are the costs of repairs contemplated
by the subsection. Under s. 108(m) of the Transfer of Property Act the lessee
is required to use the leased premises as a person of 'ordinary prudence would
use them if they were his own and must keep them in as good a condition as he
found them and must yield them up in the same condition subject only to fair
wear and tear and irresistible force. There would thus be two implied covenants
in a lease: (1) to keep in repair and (2) to restore in repair. It would
therefore be the obligation of the tenant to maintain the premises in good
repair and in the same condition at all times during the term of the lease.
The. lessor-bears the burden only in respect of dilapidation to the premises
caused by reasonable wear and tear and extraordinary causes such as storm,
flood or accidental fire. It will however be seen that the deed of lease under
which the respondent-Club took the land on lease expressly excludes the
applicability of cl. (in) of section 108. That being so the question as to
whether it is the lessor or the lessee who would be liable to pay for repairs
cannot be resolved by the provisions of section 108(m). But the expenses in
question are not expenses for the upkeep and repairs of either the land or the
structures standing on it which have been put up by the Club. Costs of these
repairs may conceivably be the land532 lord's burden. Item 3 represents
expenses for the maintenance in good repair of the track which is the source of
receipts earned by the Club. it is manifest that the track together with all
its fitments has to be maintained properly if the Club were to earn the
receipts and secure the largest possible attendance of persons willing to bet
at the races and to attract likewise as many horses and their owners to
participate in the race meetings held by the Club.
A well maintained track is obviously one of
the principal attractions inducing as large an attendance as possible.
Therefore it would be in the interest of the
tenant who takes on lease a race course with profit-making motive to maintain
the course efficiently and in good order.
Disbursements for the upkeep of the course
and all its adjuncts consequently are proper outgoings incurred for earning the
receipts. They are thus not the landlord's liability and are not part of or
included in the statutory deduction of 10 percent. The statutory deduction in
section 154(1) is in lieu of the cost of repairs, insurance, etc.
incurred by the lessor. There is therefore no
question of any duplication if expenses incurred by the Club for the
maintenance of the Course were to be allowed as a proper deduction. The High
Court was therefore right in deducting those expenses from the gross receipts.
Next is Item 9 which comprises expenses for
the upkeep and repairs of the totalisator set up by the Club. The totalisator
is an apparatus or a mechanical device for registering and showing the total
operations and the number of tickets sold to betters on each horse in a race.
Obviously it is maintained to ensure
efficient and expeditious working of the races. It does mechanically the work
which if done by human labour would necessitate employment of a large number of
persons. It is almost an indispensable adjunct of a modern race course and is
necessary to declare within the short time available to the betters which are
the horses on which heavy betting has been done in a particular race and the
total amount of betting on each of the competing horses in that race. The expenses
incurred in the upkeep and repair of such an adjunct necessary to an efficient
race course must necessarily be regarded as the outgoings of the business. The
Corporation's contention that it is a, machinery and its value therefore is not
to be included in rating under S.
154(2) has no merit as it is part of the
necessary -equipment of a good race course and its upkeep goes to the making of
receipts.
The next items in controversy are items 6,
10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, that it cost of sand and moorum, salaries and charges of
employees, motor lorry expenses, stores and charges for maintenance of horses
and bullocks, manure and garden expenses, spares of tractors and other
machinery and lastly the wheel tax and water tax. The only ground on which the
Small Cause Court partially ,allowed these expenses was that since
race-meetings were held .in Bombay for 6 months in a year only, these expenses
would partly be borne by the Club and partly by the lessor. The High 533 Court
disagreed with this view and rightly allowed the deduction of the entire
amount. In our view, it is not possible to find any Principle on which it would
be possible to hold that if the race meetings are held for 6 months only in
Bombay the burden of these disbursements would be on the tenant for 6 months
and -for the remainder on the lessor.
There is nothing in the lease which would
show that the lessor had to maintain the track during the time that race
meetings were not held in Bombay. Since it is the Turf Club which ran the race
meetings it would be the Club's obligation and not that of the lessor to look
after the track's upkeep and maintenance and therefore it would be the Club
which would bear the costs of its maintenance even during the period when race
meetings were not held in Bombay. The distribution of these expenses between
the tenant and the landlord made by the assessing authority and the Small Cause
Court cannot therefore be supported on any principle nor can it be sustained on
the mere ground that race meetings were held in Bombay only for part of the
year.
The measure in arriving at the net rateable
value under s. 154(1) is what a hypothetical tenant would pay as rent and that
would depend upon the amount of profits earned from race-meetings held on the
race-course. To arrive at the correct amount of such profit all expenses
reasonably and properly incurred which go to the making of the receipts have to
be deducted from the grossreceipts. There was no challenge at any stage that
these expenses were not properly incurred for the upkeep and maintenance of the
race course.
The High Court therefore was right in
allowing the deduction of these expenses also.
For the relevant year the Club had allotted
Rs, 8,66,666 out of the licence fee of Rs. 13 lacs to the Bombay race-course.
Counsel urged that the Club was entitled to a
deduction of Rs. 4,33,333 only as the licence was for a dual purpose, viz., for
the premises as a race course and for permission to conduct race meetings on.
the race-course. It was argued that for the first the burden would be on the
lessor and for the second on the tenant. The licence Ex. B shows that it was
granted to the Committee of the respondent Club. The licence is not a joint
licence in favour of the Corporation and the Club. The application for it was
made by the Committee on behalf of the Club and not by the Municipal
Corporation. If the licence was for a dual purpose prima facie the landlord
would either apply separately or join the Club in the application. The licence
shows that the application was for "horse racing in the race courses
leased by them" at Mahalaxmi, Bombay and in the Cantonment at Poona. The
licence is "granted to the licencees............. to hold horse races on
the said race courses." Condition I of the licence prescribes that the
Club could hold only 36 race meetings in a year out of which not more than 16
should be allotted to the Poona racecourse.
The licence is clearly permission to run race
meetings on the two race-courses and not an instrument licensing the premises
as a race-course. It is manifest that since it is the tenant who would hold the
race-meetings the fees payable for the licence is his burden 534 and not that
of the lessor. Mr. Desai. however, contended that the' scheme of the Bombay
Race-Courses Licensing Act, III of 1912 is to license the premises and then to
licence the person who runs races on such premises. He relied strongly on the
long title of the. Act which states that it was an Act to provide for the
licensing of race-courses in the State of Bombay. Reliance was also placed on,
section 3(i) which provides that no horse'-race shall be held on a race-course
for which there is no licence for horse-racing in force. But the charging
section is section 4 under which the owner, the lessee or the occupier of a
racecourse can apply for a licence for horse racing on a race-course. The
licence for horse racing and the obligation to obtain it and to pay the fee
therefor is on the person who conducts the business of running the race-course
for horseracing. Such a person can be either the owner, the lessee or the
occupier of such a racecourse. What section 3 does is to prohibit horse racing
on a racecourse unless a licence for horse racing has been obtained in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. There is no provision in the Act
which Mr.
Desai could point out which lays down any
licence fee for a race-course. There is therefore nothing in the Act to warrant
the construction that the licence obtained under section 4 has a dual purpose
as contended. Therefore there can be no justification for dividing the burden
of the licence fees between the tenant and the landlord. Mr. Desai, however,
argued that even so, the respondent Club was not entitled to claim the
deduction of the licence fees because it was not the Club but its Committee
which applied for and obtained the licence. The Articles of Association empower
the Committee to act in all matters ,on behalf of the Club. The Committee
applied for and obtained the licence on behalf of and as the agent of the Club.
The fees were expended on behalf of the Club and as expenses of its business
and it is the Club and not the Committee which is licensed to run horse racing
on the race-course. The Club was therefore entitled to treat the licence fees
as its own expenses and claim deduction there for on the footing that the fees
were expenses incurred by it to earn the receipts.
As regards the wheel tax and the water tax
there is no justification in distributing them on the ground that during the
time racemeetings were not held in Bombay it would be the landlord's obligation
to pay those taxes. In our view there is no basis for disallowing a part of
these taxes.
These again were expenses incurred by the
Club in the ordinary course of its business and were as necessary .as other
expenses in connection with its business.
Counsel for the Corporation lastly urged that
if these expenses -were allowed to be deducted the net rateable value arrived
at would be less than the actual rent of Rs. 3,75,000 payable by the Club to
the Corporation and that such a result cannot be contemplated under any method
of assessing the rateable value. It is true -that the net rateable value as
calculated by the High Court comes to Rs.
1,94,175 but the rateable value need not
always be equal 535 to the actual rent. As aforesaid the measure is what a,
hypothetical tenant is expected to pay for a lease from year to Year taking the
property as it exists with all its privileges, advantages and burdens. The
leased premises no doubt consist of a large track of land but it must be
remembered that under cl. (i)(f) of the lease the Club is in exclusive
possession of only certain portions and the remainder has to be kept open to
the public except on race days and when training of horses is held. A large
portion of the land has thus to be kept open for being used as playgrounds for
the public. It is therefore not surprising that the rateable value as
determined by the High Court comes to an amount less than the actual rent
payable by the Club.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
Back
