The judgment establishes that property tax exemption for charitable trusts under S.101(1)(d) should be based on a thorough consideration of how the trust's income is spent and whether it is supported by voluntary contributions.

The Original Petition is to quash Exts.PS and P8 orders passed by the 1st and 3rd respondents. Petitioner is running a hospital in a building situated in the heart of Muvattupuzha Town. Petitioner claims to be a charitable Trust formed by Em,: Trust Deed and by Exts.P2 and P3 settlements, the property in question also was settled in favour of the Trust. The Trust Deed is dated 12th August, 1976. For the first time in the year 1978-79, petitioner claimed exemption from property tax under S.101(1)(d) of the Kerala Municipalities Act. The claim was rejected by the Commissioner of Muvattupuzha Municipality by Ext. PS order dated 22-3-1984 stating that the accounts produced showed that charges have been collected from patients including room rent and treatment is not given free. It was, therefore, felt that the building cannot be said to be used exclusively fora Charitable purpose. It is also stated in Ext.P5 that out of the total collection of Rs.4,28,646.10, a sum of Rs.6,787.50 only is given for free treatment. It is also seen that a sum of Rs.97,789/- is spent for salary which is inclusive of the expenditure for the trustees, and further that the income and expenditure statement does not show any receipt under donation or voluntary contributions from the public for charitable purpose. He, therefore, found that the proviso to S.101(1)(d) of the Kerala Municipalities Act is not satisfied for granting exemption.

2.There is an appeal provided under the Kerala Municipalities Act and the Rules. But before availing the remedy by way of appeal, petitioner has to deposit the entire amount. That, of course, will not be a ground for not exhausting the statutory remedy, and the requirement of pre deposit will not be a ground to say that the alternative remedy is not adequate or efficient. But the petitioner availed of another remedy under S.45 of the Act. S.45(1) provides that: the Government may, by order in writing, suspend or cancel any resolution passed, order issued or licence or permission granted. Petitioner invoked the power under S.45 for cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner. The Government passed Ext. PS order by which the petition filed before the Government was dismissed. The Government found that the petitioner is a family trust run for the benefit of the members of the family and it is not a society registered under the Charitable Societies Act. The Hospital charges all patients however small the amount and hence it does not come under the definition "charitable purpose". Therefore, it was held that the hospital building is not eligible for any exemption from payment of property tax under S.101 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. It is these orders, viz. Ext.P5 order of the Commissioner of Muvattupuzha Municipality and Ext.P8 order of the Government that are being challenged in this petition.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner owns land and building and, normally, property tax will have to be imposed under S.99 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. Every building will have to be assessed together with its site and other adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto unless the owner of the building is a different person from the owner of such site or premises. S.101 gives exemption to certain buildings and lands from property tax. Petitioner claims exemption under S.101(1)(d) which is extracted herein:

"(d) lands and buildings or portions of lands and buildings exclusively occupied and used for public worship or by a society or body for a charitable purpose:

Provided that such society or body is supported wholly or in part by voluntary contributions and applies its profits, if any, or other income in promoting its objects and does not pay any dividend or bonus to its members.

Explanation:—" Charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education and medical relief but does not include a purpose which relates exclusively to religious teaching."

Petitioner claims exemption under the above provision. According to