G. PATRI BASAVANA GOUD, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent-management of the Medical College runs a students' hostel for the purpose of its students. The respondent claimed exemption in respect of the building housing the hostel, from tax under Section 110 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('act' for short ). The Commissioner of the first petitioner-Corporation of the City of Mangalore demanded tax under Section 109 of the Act in respect of the building housing the hostel. Respondent went in appeal before the second petitioner Appeal committee, which upheld the demand on the ground that the respondent was making profit out of running of the hostel. The respondent went in appeal before the learned District Judge, Dakshina kannada, Mangalore, at M. A. No. 19 of 1995. By the impugned order dated 13-2-1997 at Annexure-B, the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal and reversed the order under appeal by holding that the building housing the students' hostel is entitled for exemption under section 110 of the Act. The petitioner-Corporation is now before this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. ( 2 ) I have heard at length Sri K. V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri G. K Shevagoor, learned Counsel for the respondent. ( 3 ) BEFORE the Commissioner, certain documents were produced like college calendar, list of documents, particulars of room rent collected from the students, etc. No doubt, at the time of admission, certain amount is collected from each student seeking admission to the hostel which amount is refunded to him at the end of his tenure, The said amount, in the meantime, earns interest that goes to the management. Otherwise, there is no other aspect of profit making that is brought out in the material on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri KV. Narasimhan urges that, the balance-sheet would give an overall picture of the management making profit from the running of the hostel. As said earlier, the particulars are available before the Commissioner as to what each student is charged by way of room rent, etc. It is nobody's case that the hostel is being run for profit. It is also not a free hostel. Therefore, while recovering from the students the cost of maintenance of the hostel, it is possible that during certain months there could be excess of amount collected from the students. It is nobody's case that the hostel is being run for profit. It is also not a free hostel. Therefore, while recovering from the students the cost of maintenance of the hostel, it is possible that during certain months there could be excess of amount collected from the students. The question is whether that itself makes the hostel concerned as one being run for profit. If we look to the relevant provision, viz. , sub-clause (a) of clause (i) of Section 110 of the Act, it is evident therefrom that it is the dominant purpose for which the hostel is being run, that is important for determining whether the building concerned comes under exemption class or not. It reads thus. "section 110. The following buildings and lands shall be exempted from the property tax (i) building or lands exclusively used for (a) students hostels which are not established or conducted for profit". ( 4 ) IT could be seen from the description of the building concerned as specified in Section 110 (i) (a) of the Act that emphasises the dominant purpose for which the hostel is established or conducted, viz. , whether it is established or conducted for profit. If we examine the facts of this particular case on the basis of the material produced before the Commissioner, it is evident that, the hostel concerned is established for the benefit of the students studying in the respondent-institution, but not established or conducted for profit. If the hostel is thus not established or conducted for profit, then, the mere fact that during some months the amount collected from the inmates of the hostel exceeds the cost of maintenance, it does not matter. There could be some months in summer and in those months the students will not be there in the hostel, wherein there would not be any amount collected from the inmates of the hostel, and the hostel would be empty, and during those months obviously the management will be suffering loss looked at from the maintenance angle. I am only referring to this aspect to emphasise that the dominant purpose is to be looked into for the purpose of seeing as to whether or not building needs to be exempted under Section 110 of the act. Looked at from this angle, impugned order of the learned District judge does not call for interference. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .