The classification of residential buildings for tax exemption purposes must be based on the factual nature of use, requiring thorough evaluation to determine if it qualifies as charitable under the law.

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

The appellant filed W.P.(C) No.6125 of 2020, challenging Exhibits P3 and P6 orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and the District Collector respectively, issued under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) .

2. The issues in controversy are in a very small compass, namely, whether the buildings constructed by the appellant-Society, is to be construed as a lodge/’’other building’’; and if, it is entitled to exemption from building tax under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act.

3. The learned Single Judge found the claims of the appellant to be untenable and dismissed the writ petition;

against which, they are in appeal.

4. Sri. George Cherian, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt. Latha Susan Cherian - learned counsel for the appellant, explained that the building in question is, in fact, a set of apartments, which is given out for occupation to senior citizens from the vulnerable sections of society and who are unable to make payment of monthly rent on account of financial crisis, by accepting from them or their relatives and other well-wishers, a particular sum, in fixed deposit. He argued that the arrangement between his client and the senior citizens in question are akin to a rental arrangement; and asserted that the building ought to be found exempted from payment of building tax because they are engaged in ‘’charitable purposes’’, within the ambit of Explanation (1) to Section 3 (1) of the Act. He contended that the learned Single Judge did not consider these aspects in its proper perspective, to thus dismiss the writ petition.

5. Smt. Thushara James - learned Senior Government Pleader, however, refuted the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel and argued that, as has been found factually by the RDO and the District Collector, in Exhibits P3 and P6 orders respectively, the building is, in fact, a group of apartments, which are stated to be given in occupation to senior citizens, after obtaining a fixed deposit from each of them. She contended that, therefore, this is not a case where the apartments have been given on rent, especially because the factual enquiry reveals that there is a common dining hall and a kitchen, from which the occupants get their food; thus, rendering it to be of the nature of a hotel or a lodge, as has been correctly found. She then contended that the claim for exemption from building tax, based on Section 3 (1) of the Act, is also untenable, since the aforesaid arrangement cannot construe to be a ‘charitable purpose’ at all; and that it is, therefore, that the impugned orders have been so issued.

6. We have considered the afore rival submissions intently.

7. It is the fundamental requisite and desideratum under our Constitutional Scheme that the senior citizens are offered protection as is required, which is also mandated by certain legislations. The respect and dignity to be afforded to such citizens is inviolable under our Constitutional imperatives;

and this is so in every part of the civilized world.

8. We are not prejudging the issues to say that the arrangement between the appellant and the residents of the building are either ‘‘charitable’’ or otherwise; or that the apartments therein are to be construed in a particular manner. We are concerned because, though Exhibits P3 and P6 are stated to have been issued after factual evaluations; the conclusions therein, prima facie, present to us to be rather specious and untenable.

9. We say as afore because, both in Exhibits P3 and P6, the view taken by the Authorities is that, though the building