|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(V11) 1 CLR 6
1919 March 29
[TYSER, C.J. AND FISHER, J.]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF NICOSIA
v.
HAFIZ TAYIB EFFENDI.
MUNICIPAL COUNCILS LAW, 1885, SEC. 4-BYE-LAWS- "TRADE RATES."
The Defendant was assessed as an Imam of a mosque and Mutevelli of a vaqf under Bye-laws purporting to be made in exercise of powers conferred by Sec. 4 of the Municipal Councils Law, 1885.
HELD: That he was not liable to be so assessed.
This was an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nicosia affirming a judgment of the Village Judge of Nicosia.
The facts sufficiently appear from the judgment. The bye-laws under which the Appellant was sought to be charged are published in the Cyprus Gazette of 25th August, 1916.
Behaeddin for the Appellant.
Chrysafines for the Respondent.
The Court allowed the appeal.
Judgment: The contention of the Plaintiffs is that they are entitled to recover a rate from the Defendant because he receives payment as Imam of a Mosque and as Mutevelli of a vaqf. They base their claim on certain rates imposed by bye-laws which purport to be made under Sec. 4 of the Municipal Councils Law, 1885. That Section, so far as it concerns this action, is in the following terms:-
"The Municipality may fix by bye-laws the rates to be taken in "respect of trades and professions carried on within the Municipal "area, hitherto known as trade rates."
It is contended for the Plaintiffs by Mr. Chrysafines that any one who does any work for payment within the Municipal limits is liable to be assessed, and the Municipality may fix a rate to be paid by him.
It is said that Government clerks, employees of merchants and servants may be rated under the Law, because they are traders.
It is said that Clergymen and Imams may be taxed because they pursue learned professions.
It is said that a Mutevelli may be taxed because he is paid for his work.
The Law authorises the fixing of rates on trades and professions only, and a further limitation is that they are to be such as prior to 1886 were known as trade rates. There is no authority to rate wages or salaries.
The question is whether a rate fixed for payment by an Imam is a rate in respect of a profession within the meaning of the bye-law. In our opinion it is not. The term "profession" must be construed to mean something of the nature of a trade, i.e., a profession the carrying on of which brings profit in proportion to the work done. A lamplighter would not carry on a profession in this sense nor a policeman, nor a Government clerk.
In the same way a Clergyman or Imam does not come within the class intended to be included as carrying on a profession.
Our view as to this is confirmed by the fact that the rates are to be such as were in 1886 "hitherto known as trade rates." None of the Gazettes contain such charges as a charge on the Imam.
As to the charge on the Defendant as Mutevelli, tevliet is a mere occupation, not a profession at all. Neither the term "trade" nor "profession" will extend to a mere occupation such as that of Mutevelli or Trustee.
Appeal allowed with costs.