Judgment : 1. The petitioner is R.C.Diocese of Madurai, which owns a Church and a building known as Seminary in Door No.3-C Technical School Road, Madurai. The challenge in this writ petition is the distraint proceedings dated 16.11.1994 issued by the respondent-Corporation demanding a sum of Rs.3,04,208.90 for the period 81-82 to 94-95. 2. Mr.Peppin Fernando, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that in terms of Sec.483 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, no distraint shall be made in respect of any sum due to the Corporation under the Act after expiration of a period of six yeas from the last day of the period in respect of which such sum is claimed. The very fact that the distraint proceedings covers the period from 81-82 would show it is beyond the period of six years at least for the claim in respect of the tax year 81-82 to 87-88. Secondly, the learned counsel would challenge the impugned order on the ground that under Sec.122(a) of the Act, places set up for public worship and either actually so used or used for no other purpose are exempted from property tax. It is not in dispute that a church has been built up in the said place even in the year 1981. Hence, demand of property tax on the Church is impermissible. Insofar as the demand of property tax for the Seminary is concerned, in the said Seminary priests are staying, while they are undergoing training as well as studying 8th or 9th standard as the case may be and such seminary being also considered as a hostel, shall be construed as a building attached to educational institution and therefore, by virtue of the amended Act 42 of 1994, it is exempted from property tax. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay the enhanced tax only upto the period 87-88 for the Seminary alone and the demand for the entire period from 81-82 to 94-95 is bad in law. 3. On the contrary, Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that the property tax has been assessed only in respect of the church and the same is exempted from property tax under Sec.122(a) of the Act. 3. On the contrary, Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that the property tax has been assessed only in respect of the church and the same is exempted from property tax under Sec.122(a) of the Act. The admitted tax from 81-82 to 94-95 has been paid by the petitioner, though the petitioner has questioned the notice of demands of enhanced rent dated 17.12.1982 in O.S.No.978 of 1984. Since, the said suit questioning the enhancement of property tax was pending, the respondents were unable to make demand of the enhanced property tax. The suit was decreed on 23.7.1985 only on an undertaking given by the Corporation that the enhancement of property tax would be considered with reference to the provisions of the Rent Control Act. Pursuant to the same, enhancement of rent was considered and further notice was issued, which was also questioned by the petitioner in O.S.No.111 of 1990. The said suit was dismissed on 30.10.1993. The date, on which, the suit O.S.No.111 of 1990 was dismissed, viz., 30.10.1993, is allowed to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation under Sec.483 of the Act. 4. I have given my due consideration to the rival submissions. Insofar as the demand of property tax, it is the specific stand of the respondent-Corporation that the Church, being exempted under Sec.122(a) of the Act, was not assessed to property tax. What has been assessed to property tax is only the building, viz., the Seminary. Though an argument was put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents that the seminary which is claimed to be a hostel, is not exempted under Sec.122(c) of the Act, when the same is not attached to any educational institution, the facts are not in dispute as to the priests, who are undergoing training and are staying in the Seminary and also undergoing training and are staying in the Seminary and also undergoing their studies in 8th or 9th standards. Sec.122(c) cannot be narrowly construed to mean that property tax can be levied only in respect of the hostel attached to the educational institution. In the event, the hostel does not attach to an educational institution is proved by fact that the inmates are undergoing the course in the school, apart from their training as priests, such premises shall also be construed as a hostel attached to the educational institution. In the event, the hostel does not attach to an educational institution is proved by fact that the inmates are undergoing the course in the school, apart from their training as priests, such premises shall also be construed as a hostel attached to the educational institution. It cannot be said that this Seminary is factually attached to a Church, which is also exempted from the property tax under Sec.122(a) of the Act. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the Seminary is not exempted under Sec.122(c) of the Act cannot be accepted. However, the said exemption was brought in by way of an amendment Act 42 of 1994, which came into fore on 30.6.1994 and the Seminary is exempted from property tax only from 1994-95, i.e., from 30.6.1994. 5. Coming to the question of limitation, a suit was filed at the instance of the petitioner in O.S.No.978 of 1984 questioning the demand of enhanced tax dated 17.2.1982. Since the said suit was pending, the respondents were not able to collect the enhanced tax till the suit was decreed on 23.7.1985. It must be relevant to note that even the said suit was decreed, only on the undertaking given by the respondent-Corporation that the property tax could be considered for an enhancement on the basis of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Lease and Rent Control Act. Based upon the decree, an enhancement was also made, which was also came to be the subject matter of the suit O.S.No.111 of 1990, which was at the instance of the petitioner. The said suit ultimately was dismissed on 30.10.1993. Hence, the period of pendency of O.S.No.978 of 1984 and O.S.No.111 of 1990 shall be exempted while calculating the period of limitation of six years enabling the respondent/Corporation to demand the property tax. If that period is calculated from 30.10.1993, viz., the date of dismissal of the subsequent suit, the distraint notice dated 16.11.1991 was well within the period of six years. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the demand is barred by limitation under Sec.4(1) of the Act cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is closed.