Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the Mother Superior of Santhi Bhavan, Thrikkakara. She challenges Ext. P3 order of the Government rejecting her application under S.144 (3) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1969, by which she questioned the correctness of the appellate order passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats confirming an assessment made by the 2nd respondent-Panchayat in respect of the petitioner's building. The building was assessed under the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 ('the Act'). The petitioner claimed exemption from tax as per the provisions of S.72. She contended that the building was used as a place of worship and as a place for educational purposes. She stated that education was imparted to the students who lived in the building. The building was thus used as a place of residence exclusively for students undergoing religious and college studies. These facts have not been denied. On the other hand these facts have been accepted. In the impugned order this is what is stated by the 1st respondent: "It is only a lodging place for students who undergo religious and college studies." The building is thus accepted as a place of residence for students who undergo religious and college studies. The question is, on the basis of those admitted facts, is the building in question qualified for exemption in terms of S.72 of the Act? 2. S.72 reads: "Exemption (1) The following buildings and lands shall be exempt from the tax, cess or duty leviable under S.66 (a) ….. (b) ….. (c) ….. (d) buildings used for educational purposes including hostels, public buildings and places used for the charitable purposes of sheltering the destitute or animals, and libraries and playgrounds which are open to the public;... (Emphasis supplied) The definition is clear enough. All buildings used for educational purposes including hostels are exempt from tax. Nevertheless exemption was denied by the impugned order for the reason that "The building in question is not set apart as a place of public worship or attached to such a place of worship or approved hostel attached to any recognised educational institution." The emphasis is, as pointed out by counsel for the respondents, on the portion of the sentence which I have underlined. The objection is that, although the building is a place of residence for students, it is not an approved hostel attached to any recognised educational institution. Does S.72 require such restricted interpretation? The objection is that, although the building is a place of residence for students, it is not an approved hostel attached to any recognised educational institution. Does S.72 require such restricted interpretation? 3. The intention of the legislature is clear. All buildings defined under the section are exempted One of those buildings is a building used for educational purposes. It does not say that the building should be a recognised college or any other recognised educational institution It does not say, "recognised under any particular statute". All that it says is that it should be used for educational purposes. The user is what is important and not the statutory recognition of the building as an educational institution. If. as a matter of fact, the building is dominantly used for educational purposes, it qualifies for exemption under S 72(1)(d) It is not necessary that it is a building in which education is formally imparted, provided it is a place of residence of those to whom education is imparted and who live under the discipline and supervision of a warden or like authority. If it is a building where the students reside and study under such discipline in preparation for their examination, it is a hostel used for educational purposes. It makes no difference if it is not an approved hostel attached to any recognised educational institution. The Act does not say so. All buildings, whether colleges or hostels, qualify for exemption. The question exclusively is as to user. 4. Where the user is in dispute, the relevant facts have to be found, In the present case the facts are not in dispute for the facts stated by the petitioner have not been denied or doubted. In the circumstances I am of the view that on the unquestioned facts of this case the petitioner's building qualifies for exemption under S.72(1)(d) of the Act. It is so declared. Ext. P3 is accordingly quashed. The Original Petition is allowed. No costs.