JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri D.D. Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant, on the question of admission. 2. This case and three other cases, namely, Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 494 of 1995, 495 of 1995, and 492 of 1995 have been filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to direct the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and make a reference. The common assessee is the former ruler of Rutlam State. These cases relate to different assessment years. We dispose of the four cases by this order. 3. The common question of law, which is said to arise in these cases, is as follows ; "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case including, in particular, the fact that part of the official residence of the ex-Ruler of Ratlam who is the assessee-respondent, stood let out, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption of the value of the said property in its entirety under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?" 4. The exemption is claimed under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act. According to this provision, the wealth-tax shall not be payable by the assessee in respect of any one building in the occupation of the Ruler, being a building, which immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, 1971, was his official residence by virtue of the declaration by the Central Government under paragraph 13 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, or paragraph 15 of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950. 5. The dispute in this case relates to a building belonging to the assessee-Ruler, which was his official residence before the commencement of the 26th Amendment to the Constitution and there was an appropriate declaration in that behalf by the Central Government under the provisions of the two orders referred to above. It is admitted that the building was a palace and a part of the building had been let out by the assessee. All the statutory authorities and the Tribunal held that though a part of the building had been rented out, exemption under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Act is available in regard to the entire building. The Tribunal also declined to make a reference under Section 256(1) of the Act. Hence, this application. 6. All the statutory authorities and the Tribunal held that though a part of the building had been rented out, exemption under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Act is available in regard to the entire building. The Tribunal also declined to make a reference under Section 256(1) of the Act. Hence, this application. 6. An identical question has been considered and answered against the Revenue by this court in CIT v. Bharatchandra Banjdeo [1985] 154 ITR 256. That was also a case of palace of an ex-Ruler, a portion of which had been let out. This court held that nevertheless the entire building is exempt for the purpose of the wealth-tax. It is held that the expression "any one building" has been used only to indicate that not more than one building can be exempt. The intention of the Legislature was not that if a building is in the occupation of the assessee, the value of part of the building, which has been rented out, could be reckoned for the purpose of assessing the wealth-tax. 7. We, therefore, hold that no question of law, as suggested by the Revenue, arises for consideration. The applications are dismissed.