X is the owner of a drive-in-theatre wherein cinema films are exhibited. As per law of the State, where an auditorium is also provided in a drive-in-theatre premises, persons other than those desiring to view the cinema while sitting in motor cars can “also” be admitted. The person who is admitted to view the film is required to pay Rs.300/- but a person sitting in his car in the auditorium is further required to pay Rs.200/- more. The challenge to the levy (Rs.200/-) is on the ground that the vehicle is not a person entertained and, therefore, the levy is ultra vires (not as per List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India). The State contends that the word “entertainment” is wide enough to comprehend in it the luxury or comfort with which a person entertains in the theatre himself.

Apply the most relevant rule of interpretation and discuss the rule also with the help of case law.       (20 Marks)