Judgment :- 1. Isaac J. has referred this case to a Division Bench since he felt that the decision of Govindan Nair J. in Kallara Panchayat v. State of Kerala (1972 KLT.126), following two Division Bench rulings of the Madras High Court in, one, The General Committee, Madras Club v. The City Municipal Council of Madras [(1964) I MLJ. 671] and, two, Addison Paints and Chemicals (Private) Ltd., Madras v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Madras ((1962) II MLJ. 440), required reconsideration. The question involved, though of importance, lies within a narrow compass: and the question relates to the interpretation of proviso (ii) of R.4 of the Kerala Panchayats (Building Tax) Rules, 1963. 2. The petitioner is a medical practitioner; and the first respondent is the Executive Officer of the Kanjirappally Panchayat. The petitioner has seven buildings within the panchayat area; and the buildings are used for running a hospital under the style Kadamapuzha Hospital. There is a registered partnership among the petitioner, his son and son-in-law; -and the petitioner has let out these buildings on a monthly rent of Rs. 840/-under Ex. P2 dated Ist June 1968 to the partnership. Three of the buildings are used partly for the hospital and partly for housing pay wards, while the other four buildings are used as residential quarters for doctors and nursing sisters. The Panchayat made a revision of the building tax for the five years commencing from 1968-69 as required by the Building Tax Rules. And the question we have to consider is whether the mode of assessing the annual rental value for the purpose of taxation is correct. 3. Under S.68 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, every panchayat has the right to levy a tax on all buildings, other than huts and buildings exempted under the Act, in the panchayat area, at such percentage of the net annual rental value of the building as may be fixed by the panchayat subject to a maximum of ten per cent and a minimum of four per cent S.72 of the Act exempts certain types of buildings and lands from tax, cess or duty leviable under S.66 (S. 66 enumerates the taxes, cess, etc. leviable by Panchayats.) Rules are framed regarding the mode of taxing; and the rules are the Kerala Panchayats (Building Tax) Rules, 1963. And we are concerned only with proviso (ii) to R.4. leviable by Panchayats.) Rules are framed regarding the mode of taxing; and the rules are the Kerala Panchayats (Building Tax) Rules, 1963. And we are concerned only with proviso (ii) to R.4. R.4 lays down that the net annual rental value of buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to be let from month to month or from year to year, less a deduction of ten per cent, etc. And proviso (ii) reads "Any building of a class not ordinarily let, the gross annual rent of which cannot, in the opinion of the Executive Authority be estimated, the annual rental value shall be deemed to be six percent of the total estimated value of the appurtenant land and estimated present cost of erecting the building after deducting for depreciation a reasonable amount which shall in no case be less than ten per cent of such cost:" The other parts of the rule are not quite relevant for the disposal of this case. 4. What appears from the rule mentioned above is that two modes are provided for determining the annual rental value, one, based on the gross annual rent at which the building may reasonably be expected to be let from month to month or from year to year (with certain deductions), and the other, based on the total estimated value of the appurtenant land and the estimated present cost of erecting the building less depreciation. The first mode is to be applied in the case of buildings of a class ordinarily let; and the second mode is to be applied in the case of buildings of a class not ordinarily let. And the controversy before us centres round the question as to what sort of buildings fall in the class of buildings ordinarily let and what sort of buildings fall in the class of buildings buildings not ordinarily let. 5. The decision of Govindan Nair J., as we have stated already, has followed two Division Bench rulings of the Madras High Court which were given under S.100 of the Madras City Municipal Act, sub-soction (2) of which contains the same language as the language in R.4 of our Building Tax Rules. 5. The decision of Govindan Nair J., as we have stated already, has followed two Division Bench rulings of the Madras High Court which were given under S.100 of the Madras City Municipal Act, sub-soction (2) of which contains the same language as the language in R.4 of our Building Tax Rules. The first of these decisions was given by Rajan annar C. J., wherein the learned Chief Justice has observed that the buildings which belong to the class of buildings not ordinarily let are buildings like temples, memorial buildings, etc. In that case, the Division Bench was considering the nature of the building in which the Madras Club in Madras was housed. And the Division Bench opined that the building came within the class of buildings ordinarily Jet. The other decision of the Madras High Court was given by Ramakrishnan J. sitting with Ramachandra Iyer C. J.: and the Division Bench followed the earlier decision already referred to and has observed that buildings which, from the very nature of their construction or design, could be considered as buildings not capable of being let are buildings like temples, memoral structures, etc. It is these decisions that have been followed by Govindan Nair J. in the decision of our High Court. 6. Isaac J. has suggested that (be types of buildings mentioned above like temples, memorial buildings, etc. are buildings not let at all. And, probably it is such buildings that come within S.72 of our Act, viz., buildings which are excluded from tax. The buildings taxable or liable to tax are to be classified into two divisions, buildings of the class ordinarily let and buildings of the class not ordinarily let. On this line of reasoning, what appears is that temples, memorial buildings, etc. are not buildings coming within the mischief of R.4 the decisions of the Madras High Court, followed by Govindan Nair J., where a contrary opinion was expressed, might be obiter, or, if they are not obiter, may not be quite happy, in the light of the language of the relevant section: the learned judges do not appear to have adverted to this aspect in those cases. If a building is so designed or constructed as to house a hospital, as in this case, it may fall within the class of buildings not ordinarily let: on the other hand, if the building is designed or constructed in such a fashion as to be a residential building, it may fall within the class of buildings ordinarily let, though the intention at the time of its construction was not to let the building on rent. It is quite common that buildings are constructed for the residence of the owners and not for being let out on rent. Still, from the design or mode of construction of such buildings, if they can be considered as buildings falling under a class ordinarily let, then the buildings will fall within the class of buildings ordinarily 1st and taxed accordingly. Yet another example. If a building having a row of rooms abutting a road in a town or a business place is constructed, it may fall in the class of buildings ordinarily let; at the same time, if such a building is constructed in a panchayat area, in a place which is not a business place or a shopping centre, it may not fall within the class of buildings ordinarily let. Therefore, the question whether a particular building falls within one category or the other depends upon its design or construction, its location, etc.; and this is more or less a question of fact, which has to be decided in each case. And to the extent indicated above, we are of opinion that the judgment of Govindan Nair J., following the Division Bench rulings of the Madras High Court, does not lay down the correct law. 7. Now we come to the buildings involved in the case before us. In this case, the Panchayat has assessed the three buildings in which the hospital and the pay wards are housed as buildings belonging to the class ordinarily let: the reasoning of the Panchayat is that the pay wards are let out to patients from whom money is collected, out of which a percentage may be deducted for medical charges and the rest must be taken as the rent of the rooms. This line of reasoning is erroneous, because the question to be decided is whether, from the nature, design or construction, location etc. This line of reasoning is erroneous, because the question to be decided is whether, from the nature, design or construction, location etc. of the buildings it can be said that the buildings fall in a class of buildings ordinarily let. In our opinion, the three buildings in which the hospital and the pay wards are housed do not fall in this class. 8. Curiously enough, the Panchayat has assessed the other four buildings constructed as residential quarters for the doctors and nursing sisters as buildings not ordinarily let. For this, the Panchayat does not appear to have given any reason. Still, from the very design or nature of construction of these buildings, it is apparent that these buildings fall within the class of buildings ordinarily let; and they should have been assessed on that basis. 9. The writ petition is allowed; and Exx.P4 and P7 are quashed. The Panchayat is directed to make the assessments on the seven buildings as indicated above, viz., the three buildings where the hospital and the pay wards are housed as buildings not falling in the class of buildings ordinarily let and the other four buildings falling in the class of buildings ordinarily let. No costs. Allowed.