ORDER
1. The petitioners, in this petition, are the Trustees of Mr. Justice N.D. Krishna Rao Memorial Trust (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trust’). The Trust claims to be a public charitable trust with the object of promoting education, especially among economically backward members of society by awarding scholarships to students and other public charitable causes set out in the Trust Deed. A copy of the Trust Deed has been produced as Annexure-A.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the Trust has constructed a Choultry/Kalyana Mantap on a civic amenity site allotted by the Banga-
lore Development Authority at 13th Main, HAL II Stage, Bangalore, which is known as “NDK Kalyana Mandir”, and the aim of the Trust is not to accumulate any profit and the income generated from the utilisation of the Kalyana Mantap is being spent by the Trust solely for charitable purposes.
3. In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that NDK Kalyana Mantap in question is exempted from payment of property tax under Section 110(b) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). They have also prayed for quashing the order dated 23rd of September, 1993, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-H, passed by the 4th respondent-Taxation Appeals Committee confirming the order dated 5th of March, 1990, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-C, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, who is the Appeal Officer, and also the notice dated 19th of February, 1994, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-J, informing the petitioners that the appeal filed by them has been dismissed and calling upon them to pay the tax demanded as assessed by the Appeal Officer.
4. Sri S.V. Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for Sri Udaya Holla for petitioners, submitted that since the income derived out of the occupation of the Kalyan Mantap in question is exclusively used for charitable purposes in terms of clause (b) of Section 110 of the Act, the Kalyana Mantap of the petitioners is exempted from payment of property tax. He pointed out that the claim of the petitioners for payment of property tax is rejected on the sole ground that the Kalyana Mantap of the petitioners is not a ‘Choultry’ in terms of clause (b) of Section 110 of the Act. According to the learned Counsel, except in the nomenclature given to the building in question, there is no distinction between a ‘Choultry’ and a ‘Kalyana Mantap’. According to him, the Kalyana Mantap in question is also a ‘Choultry’. Therefore, he submitted that the only question that was required to be considered by the authorities was, whether the income derived by the petitioners was being exclusively used for charitable purposes or not; and the same having not been done, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
5. However, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation, strongly supported the impugned orders. He submitted that the exemption under Section 110(b) of the Act is granted only for ‘Choultries’ and not for ‘Kalyana Mantap’. According to him, ‘Choultry’ is different from ‘Kalyana Mantap’. In support of his submission, he referred to me the meaning of ‘Choultry’ given in New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, wherein ‘Choultry’ has been explained as follows:
“Choultry.–In the Indian subcontinent; an open shed used as a travellers’ rest-house; the colonnade of a temple; a meeting house, a Court-house”.
6. It is not in dispute that the claim of the petitioners for exemption from payment of property tax is rejected by the respondents on the sole ground that the building in question is a ‘Kalyana Mantap’ and not a ‘Choultry’ and as such, it is not entitled for exemption in terms of clause
(b) of Section 110 of the Act. Therefore, the only question that would arise for my consideration in this petition is, whether a ‘Kalyana Man-tap’ is entitled for exemption in terms of clause (b) of Section 110 of the
Act?
7. Before I consider the said question, it is useful to extract clause (b) of Section 110 of the Act, which reads as hereunder:
“110. General exemptions.–The following buildings and lands shall be exempted from the property tax.-
(a) xx xx xx xx. (b) Choultries for the occupation of which no rent is charged and choultries the rent charged for occupation of which is used exclusively for charitable purposes".
From the reading of Section 110(b), it is clear that the said section comprises of two parts. The first part relates to choultries for the occupation of which no rent is charged. The second part relates to the choultries for the occupation of which rent is charged and the rent so charged/derived is used exclusively for charitable purposes. Therefore, it is clear that all choultries in respect of which no rent is charged, are exempted from payment of property tax and even the choultries in respect of which rent is charged for occupation, but if the income/rent derived out of such occupation is exclusively used for charitable purposes, are also exempted from payment of property tax. In my view, merely because the building of the petitioner-Trust is known as “Kalyana Mantap”, it would not make any difference insofar as the claim made for exemption from payment of property tax is concerned. There is no definition of “Choultry” or “Kalyana Mantap” given in the Act. The substance of the matter is whether any rent is being charged or not and if charged, whether the income is exclusively used for charitable purposes, It is well known that “Kalyana Mantaps” are being used for performing marriages and other ceremonies and public functions. The construction of ‘Kalyana Mantap’ is generally in the nature of construction of a hall with a provision made for cooking and dining for the people who attend the functions, both religious and social, arranged in the Kalyana Mantap. ‘Choultry’ also is a place where marriages and other ceremonies, both religious and social, are organised. The construction of the building generally consists of a hall with a provision for kitchen and dining. A building whether it is called as a ‘Choultry’ or ‘Kalyana Man-tap’ the use for which it is put, is by and large the same. Section 110 of the Act provides for grant of exemption from payment of property tax. The object of the said provision appears to be to encourage charitable or other purposes incidental thereto. The object of clause (b) of Section 110 of the Act, it appears to me, is to exempt the buildings which fall under two categories, viz., one in respect of which no rent is charged and another in respect of which the income so derived is exclusively used for charitable purposes, from payment of property tax. But, the thrust of the matter is that the nature of the building must be meant for public use, where without any restriction whatsoever, the building is available for the use of the public. The nature of the use of the building also should
have an element of public use. It is not the case of the respondents that there is any restriction with regard to the use of the Kalyana Mantap of the petitioner-Institution. In my view, in a matter like this, so long as the building, whether it is called as a Kalyana Mantap or as a Choultry, is meant to be used by the members of the public and it is not owned and retained only for the exclusive purpose of the owner of the building, such a building can be treated as a Choultry, which is entitled for exemption as required under clause (b) of Section 110 of the the Act provided the requirement of Section 110(b) of the Act is satisfied. Mere nomenclature of the building should not make any difference. This is also clear from the fact that ‘Choultries’ for the occupation of which no rent is charged; and if the rent is charged, it is exclusively used for charitable purposes, are exempted from payment of property tax. Therefore, the main consideration is that either no rent is charged for the occupation of the building and if rent is charged, the said rent is exclusively used for charitable purposes. In the light of the above view taken by me, the Kalyana Mantap of Mr. Justice N.D. Krishna Rao Memorial Trust is entitled for exemption from payment of property tax in terms of Section 110(b) of the Act, provided the rent so charged or collected is exclusively used for charitable purposes. However, in the instant case, since the claim of the Trust has been rejected only on the ground that Kalyana Mantap is not a Choultry, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter is required to be remitted for fresh consideration.
8. In the light of the discussion made above, impugned order An-nexure-H dated 23rd September, 1993; impugned order at Annexure-C dated 5th of March, 1990 passed by the Deputy Commissioner; and also impugned notice Annexure-J dated 19th of February, 1994 and notice Annexure-M dated 2nd of January, 1999 are liable to be quashed and accordingly, they are hereby quashed.
9. The matter is remitted to the Taxation Appeals Committee for fresh consideration in the light of the discussion made above and also in the light of the observations made by me in my order made in Writ Petition No. 2399 of 1999, which will have a bearing for consideration of the matter.
10. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Taxation Appeals Committee, Corporation of the City of Bangalore, on 6th of May, 1999 at 3-00 p.m. It is made clear that the petitioners are not entitled for any fresh notice from the respondents for the said purpose. If, on 6th of May, 1999, the petitioners fail to appear before the Taxation Appeals Committee, the Committee is entitled to take ex parte decision in the matter in accordance with law. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to produce such documents or evidence in support of their claim. The Committee shall pass appropriate orders within two months from 6th of May, 1999.
11. However, it is made clear that till fresh decision is taken, as directed above, the respondents are not entitled to recover the property tax, as demanded in impugned notice at Annexure-J.
12. In terms stated above, this petition is allowed and disposed of. Rule issued is made absolute.