JUDGMENT This appeal is at the instance of the defendant arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff receiver of Bhote Bagan Math Estate. Bhote Bagan Math Estate is situate at 5, Gossain Ghat Road and the entire suit property is used exclusively for the religious purpose of public worship. The suit property was all along exempted from consolidated rate upto 28th March, 1956 on which date the plaintiff was informed that the property bad been sub-divided into two holdings, being SA and 5B, Gossain Ghat-Road and that 5B, Gossain Ghat Road was not exempted from the consolidated rate and was assessed from second quarter of 1956-57. The defendant Municipality contested the suit by filing the written statement, inter alia, contending that the whole premises was not used exclusively for public worship and as such the action of the defendant can be sustained. Both the Courts held in favour of the plaintiff Hence the present appeal. 2. Mr. Pain on behalf of the appellant contended that under Section 126 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, as the whole property is not used exclusively for the public religious purposes, it is not exempted from taxation. 3. Mr. Banarjee on the other hand argued that from time immemorial the property being 5 Gossain Ghat Road was being used for public religious purposes and the action of the Municipality in sub-dividing 5 Gossain Ghat Road into SA and 5B Gossain Ghat Road was illegal and ultra vires and furthermore it is argued that upto 1956, the whole of the property was exempted from Municipal taxation and the Circumstances has not changed at all which may make the property liable to municipal tax. 4. Mr. Pain argued that the Municipality has exempted the portions of the property which are exclusively used for religious purpose from taxation but the office for the management of the Estate of toe Math and the free quarters of the Mahanta and other staffs cannot be said to be a place used for public worship. In that view of the matter, it is argued that the plaintiff was informed that premises No.5, Gossain Gbat Road was being sub-divided into two portions in 5A and 5B Gossain Ghat Rord. In that view of the matter, it is argued that the plaintiff was informed that premises No.5, Gossain Gbat Road was being sub-divided into two portions in 5A and 5B Gossain Ghat Rord. Premises No. SA Gossain Ghat Road was exempted from taxation but in respect of the portion comprising the buildings, office of the Receiver and the quarters of Mahant and other staffs is not so exempted. The question therefore, is whether the office of the Receiver and the free quarters of Mahanta and other staffs are exempted from taxation by the Municipality under Section 126 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. 5. Both the Courts held as a finding of fact that the office of the Receiver or his staffs is a part of the establishment which controls and manages the performance of religious ceremony and therefore the premises are used exclusively for the purpose of public worship. 6. It appears that it is not the case of the defendant that the Bhote Bagan Math is not exclusively a religious place for public worship but the Municipality's case is that the portion of the premises not having been used for the purpose of public place of worship, the said portion cannot be exempted from the Municipal tax. 7. In my opinion Mr. Pain is not correct in his submission. The estate of Bhote Bagan Math includes vacant land and structures. In the part of the premises there are partly two-storied and party one storied buildings and other structures and open space. The said premises are used by the Mahanta, his staffs, his personal servants and other staffs of Debuttar estate. It is further stated that there is a office of the Receiver but both the Courts held that the staffs of Mahanta, the staffs of the Debuttar estate, the servants, the darwans and the pujaries who are working under the Mahanta are connected with seba puja of the deities in the temples. If this finding is correct, it cannot be doubted that the performance by the servants, clerks etc. which are incidental to the performance of religious service is connected with the Math. The District Judge, Howrah, in suit No. 20 of 1935 has held that they all perform the religious services connected with the temple. If this finding is correct, it cannot be doubted that the performance by the servants, clerks etc. which are incidental to the performance of religious service is connected with the Math. The District Judge, Howrah, in suit No. 20 of 1935 has held that they all perform the religious services connected with the temple. There was a scheme framed by the District Judge wherein it was stated that the Mahanta is the custodian of the properties of the deities in the premises in suit and not only that he is in sole charge of the management connected with the puja and other religious rites in the premises in suit and so some portion of the disputed premises must be used by the Darwans, the pujaries and the staff of the Debuttar estate for the proper care and safety of the Debuttar properties and also for the deities in the said premises. For the seba puja of the deities, services are necessary and servants to be employed to clean temple and the adjoining places and also they must have essential accommodations in the premises in order to perform the daily seba puja of the deities, and for protection of the premises in question. Keeping those in mind now I consider whether the exemption can be granted to the plaintiff under section 126 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. Section 126 of the Calcutta Municipal Act runs as follows : "126. (1) Buildings used exclusively for purposes of public worship, and public burial or burning grounds or other places for the disposal of the dead duly registered under Chapter XXXI, shall be exempt from the consolidated rate; and the Corporation any either wholly or partly exempt from the consolidated rate any land or building used exclusively for purposes of public charity: Provided that the following land and buildings shall not be deemed to be used exclusively for public worship or for purposes of public charily within the meaning of this section, namely, (a) land or buildings in or on which any trade or business is carried on ; and (b) land or buildings in respect of which rent is derived, whether such rent is or is not applied exclusively to religious purposes or purposes of public charity. (2) Open spaces and parade grounds, which are the property of the Government and Over which, when not required for military purposes, the public are allowed to have free access, shall be exempted from the consolidated rate, if the Local Government so direct. (3) The Corporation may exempt the owner of any hut from payment of the whole or any portion of the consolidated rate payable in respect of such hut, and in any such Case they may exempt the owner of the land on which the hut is built, or not, as they think fit. (4) The Corporation may by resolution, exempt from the consolidated rate all lands and buildings the annual valuation of which, as determined under this chapter, does not exceed twenty rupees or such smaller sum as may be specified in such resolution: Provided that no person shall be entitled to claim the benefit of such exemption if he owns or occupies more than one piece of and or more than one building and the aggregate annual valuation of all the lands or buildings owned or occupied by him exceeds twenty rupees or the said smaller sum." In that view of the fact, I hold, agreeing with the finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below, that as the occupation of the disputed portion of the premises by the Mahanta, the servants and darwans in respect of the structures situate at premises No.5 Gossain Ghat Road, is necessary for the proper performance of the functions connected with the rites for the purpose of public worship of the deities of the temp1e it must be held that they are used for the purpose of public worship and therefore they are entitled to the exemption from the assessment under Section 126 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. 8. Mr. Banerjee contended that the sub• division of the holding into 5A and 5B, Gossain Ghat Road which was erstwhile numbered as premises No. 5 Gossain Ghat Road cannot be sustained in view of the fact that no application was made for the sub-division. The provision of the sub-division of a holding is to be found in Section 130 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. It pre-supposes an application form the owner of any land or building for sub-division. Without such application, the premises in question, cannot be sub-divided. The provision of the sub-division of a holding is to be found in Section 130 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. It pre-supposes an application form the owner of any land or building for sub-division. Without such application, the premises in question, cannot be sub-divided. It is a common case that no such application has been made by the Receiver. Unless the owner of the premises applies, the sub-division of a holding cannot be made. 9. In my opinion, therefore, the sub-division of premises No. 5 Gossain Ghat Road into 5A and 5B Gossain Ghat Road cannot be made. 10. In the result, the appeal must stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.