JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner Baikunth Dham Ashram, Bhupatwala, Hardwar through Swami Sadanand, Manager of Baikunth Dham Ashram, Bhupatwala, Hardwar questions the validity of the order dated 29th of March, 1975 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Roorkee rejecting petitioners objection that the building owned by it was not liable to be assessed to house tax and water tax under the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The petitioner further questions the validity of the appellate order dated 9th of April, 1977 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, dismissing petitioner's appeal against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate dated 29th March, 1975. 2. The petitioner, which claims to be religious and charitable institution, owns House No. 27, Bhupatwala, Hardwar. In due course proceedings were initiated for enhancing the annual assessment of the said building under the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The petitioner objected to the enhancement of the annual assessment, as also to the assessment of the said building to house tax and water tax inter alia on the ground that the said building was meant for religious and charitable purposes and was, therefore, not liable to be assessed to house tax. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, vide his order dated 29th of March, 1975, rejected the objection of the petitioner holding that there was nothing to show that the said building was not being used for residential purposes (that is, a purpose other than religious or charitable purpose). He did not accept petitioner's case that the said building was being used as a Dharmshala or for any other religious purpose. 3. Aggrieved the petitioner went up in appeal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate who dismissed the same by his order dated 9th of April, 1977. The Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that it was not disputed that house tax could not be imposed on properties used exclusively for religious purposes and that temple, Samadhi, Dhour Satsang Bhawan, bathing ghat or public tank and similar places of worship were exempted. He, however, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to show that the building was being used for any such religious purposes. He also held that the said building was net a Dharma-shall and that there was material before him to show that some portion of the building had actually been let out on rent by the petitioner. He, however, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to show that the building was being used for any such religious purposes. He also held that the said building was net a Dharma-shall and that there was material before him to show that some portion of the building had actually been let out on rent by the petitioner. In the circumstances, he concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to any exemption front payment of house tax and water tax. He accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has now approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Normally any building situated within the limits of the Municipal Board would be liable to be assessed to house tax and water tax under the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act. Section 157 (2) of the said Act, however, enables the Board to, by a special resolution confirmed by the Prescribed Authority, exempt from the payment of a tax, or any portion of a tax, imposed under the Act, any person or class of persons or any property or description of property. In view of the observations made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in his order dated 9th of April, 1977 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) it may be taken that there was an exemption granted by the Board from payment of house tax and water tax in respect of properties used exclusively for religious purposes such as temple, Samadhi, Dhour Satsang Bhawan, bathing ghat or public tank and similar places worship. However, it was for the petitioner to, while claiming exemption from payment of house tax and water tax under Section 157 (2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, adduce evidence and establish before the concerned authorities that the building in question was being used exclusively for religious purposes of the nature specified in the Boards resolution granting exemption. Concurrent finding of both the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate is that the petitioner has failed to show that the building in question was being used for any such purpose. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner emphasised the fact that the petitioner is a trust which had been set up primarily for religious and charitable purposes. Concurrent finding of both the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate is that the petitioner has failed to show that the building in question was being used for any such purpose. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner emphasised the fact that the petitioner is a trust which had been set up primarily for religious and charitable purposes. That may be so but then it does not mean that all the properties which are owned by such trust are necessarily being used by it for such purposes only. In case a religious and charitable trust actually uses the property owned by it for purposes other than religious, whether or not use of such property is under the trust deed, permissible for such a purpose, the property would not be exempt from payment of house tax and water tax under a resolution of the Board exempting from payment of tax only such properties as are being used for religious purposes. Apart from relying upon the trust deed which showed that the object of setting up of the petitioner trust was religious, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any material that was placed by him before concerned authorities in support of his claim that the said property was being used exclusively for religious purposes. We are accordingly of opinion that the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the Chief Magistrate were quite justified in combing to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to exemption from payment of house tax in respect of House no. 27, Bhupatwala, Hardwar. In our opinion, the two impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity and no case has been made out for quashing them in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.