Judgment :- Admit. 2. By consent of the learned counsel for both parties, the writ petitions are disposed of. 3. Since a common question of law is involved in all these writ petitions, all the writ petitions were heard together and this common order is passed. 4. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are Educational Institutions. They use buildings for educational purposes. The respondents in all these writ petitions who are village panchayats concerned have issued notices for demand of house tax under Sections 172 & 174 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act of 1974, demanding house tax for the said buildings. Challenging such notices, the petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions. 5. The contention of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that Rule 15(c) of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Act (Assessment and Collection of Taxes) Rules 1999 was amended as per G.O.Ms.No.38 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, dated 05.03.2008 and under the said Rule 15(c), the buildings used for educational purposes including hostels have been exempted from house tax. The petitioners would rely on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sriram Educational Trust v. The President, 89, Perumalpattu Panchayat Union ( 2008 (1) CTC 449 ). 6. The said case came to be decided when such demand notices were issued under Section 172 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, as per the then Rule 15(c) which now stands repealed and substituted by new Rule 15(c). 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would however submit that as per the present Rule 15(c) introduced by means of amendment, the exemption from house tax has not been extended to the buildings used by unaided colleges for educational purposes by unaided educational institutions and so, the demand notices are strictly in accordance with law which do not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 8. Now let me consider the rival submissions. 9. 8. Now let me consider the rival submissions. 9. Before referring to the present Rule 15(c), let me extract the old Rule 15(c) which now stands repealed which is thus:- "15(c)buildings used for educational purposes including hostels and libraries which are open to the public and public buildings used for charitable purpose of sheltering the destitutes or animals;" "Provided that nothing contained in clauses (a) and © shall be deemed to exempt from house-tax, if any building for which rent is payable by the person or persons using the same for the purposes referred to in the said clauses: Provided further that Educational Institution (not commercial in nature) exempted from levy of house-tax, immediately before the commencement of the Act shall continue to be exempted under the said Act. Explanation.-The exemption granted under this Rule shall not extend to residential quarters attached to schools or colleges not being the hostels or residential quarters attached to hospitals, dispensaries and libraries." 10. When the demand notices for house tax issued in respect of buildings used for educational purposes owned by the unaided educational institutions came up for consideration, while interpreting old Rule 15(c), a learned single Judge of this Court held that such buildings fall within the purview of Rule 15(c) and so, they are exempted from house tax. But, while interpreting the same, another learned single Judge of this Court has held the view that the buildings owned by self financing educational institutions though used for educational purposes, do not fall with the ambit of Rule 15 (c) and therefore, they are not exempted from paying house tax. When the matter was referred to a Division bench, after analyzing old Rule 15(c) and after analyzing several judgments of the Honble Supreme Court, the Division Bench has held that the buildings owned by unaided educational institutions which are used for educational purposes do fall within Rule 15(c) and so, they are exempted from house tax. 11. Subsequent to the said judgment of the Division Bench, the said old Rule 15(c) was repealed and in its place, new Rule 15(c) was substituted as per G.O.Ms.No.38 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, dated 05.03.2008 and third proviso to Rule 15 was also introduced. 11. Subsequent to the said judgment of the Division Bench, the said old Rule 15(c) was repealed and in its place, new Rule 15(c) was substituted as per G.O.Ms.No.38 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, dated 05.03.2008 and third proviso to Rule 15 was also introduced. The newly introduced Rule 15(c) and third proviso are as follows:- "15(c) buildings used for educational purposes including hostels and libraries run by the Government or local bodies and institutions aided by the Government and public buildings used for charitable purpose of sheltering the destitutes or animals; .(2) in the first proviso, for the expression "clauses (a) and (c)", the expression "clause (a)" shall be substituted; .(3) after the second proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- "Provided also that the buildings used for educational purposes by Governmental aided institutions, for conducting self-financing unaided courses shall be subject to levy of house tax"." 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the present Rule 15(c) deals with four categories of buildings viz., .(i) Buildings used for educational purposes including hostels; .(ii) Libraries run by the Government or local bodies; (iii) Institutions aided by the Government and (iv) Public buildings used for charitable purpose of sheltering the destitutes or animals. 13. By interpreting the present Rule 15(c) in the above manner, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that all the buildings used for educational purposes including hostels have been exempted from house tax. For this interpretation, the learned counsel would rely on the findings of the Division Bench in Sriram Educational Trust case (cited supra). 14. But, the learned Additional Government Pleader would interpret Rule 15(c) in a different manner. He would say that the following buildings are exempted by the present Rule 15(c):- .(i) Buildings used for educational purposes including hostels and libraries run by the Government; .(ii) Buildings used for educational purposes including hostels and libraries run by the local bodies; (iii) Buildings used for educational purposes including hostels and libraries run by the institutions aided by the Government and (iv) Buildings used for charitable purpose of sheltering the destitutes or animals. 15. 15. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that, doubt, if any, in interpreting Rule 15(c) would get cleared if one looks into the newly added third proviso which clarifies that exemption from house tax is not applicable for the buildings used for educational purposes though by the aided institutions, if they conduct self financing unaided courses. 16. While interpreting the old Rule 15(c), the Division Bench has held thus:- "A reading of the Rule 15 shows that apart from panchayat buildings and Government maintained buildings, the various sub-rules list out buildings entitled to exemption subject to the qualification as to the character of use and purpose provided for therein. On a reading of the exemption provision, it is clear that wherever the Rule contemplated a qualification to any class of houses as a condition for availing the exemption, it is specific enough to say so......... Clause (c) libraries which are open to public, and public buildings used for charitable purpose of sheltering the destitutes or animals are exempt from tax. So too, Charitable hospitals, dispensaries and other buildings exclusively used for charitable purposes [sub-rule (e)]. As for buildings used for educational purposes are concerned, the sub-rule 15(c) stops by referring to the use of the building as for educational purposes including hostels. There are no other qualifying words to attend on the phrase "buildings used for educational purposes including hostels." "There are two provisions which carve out the exceptions to the claim for the exemption – rented buildings used for purposes referred to under sub rules (a) and © are not entitled to claim the benefit of exemption. Under the Second Proviso, Educational Institutions not commercial in nature exempted from house tax immediately before the commencement of the Act shall continue to be exempted under the said Act." (Emphasis supplied) 17.The above extracted portion of the judgment would go to show that the Division Bench has classified the buildings under the old Rule as:- .(i) Buildings used for educational purposes including hostels; .(ii) Libraries which are open to public and (iii) Public buildings used for charitable purpose of sheltering the destitutes or animals. 18. 18. By interpreting Rule 15(c) in the above manner to classify the buildings into three categories as enumerated above in paragraph No.32 of the said judgment, the Division Bench has further held as follows:- "For the purpose of understanding the term "public" references were also made to the dictionary meaning, from Ramanatha Iyer – The Advanced Law Lexicon. The reading of the Rule does not contain according to us, any such requirement as "open to public" as in the case of library. After the word "hostels" in Rule 15(c), there is a conjunction to refer to libraries which are open to public, as an independent item of exemption. We hold that the requirement as open to public relates only to a library and not with reference to an educational institution. Hence "open to public" is not a qualification or an eligibility to confer a benefit of exemption on the educational institutions." 19. A reading of the above judgment would further make one to understand that the Division Bench has given weightage to the conjunction namely, the word "and" found between the words ‘hostels’ and ‘libraries’ to hold that the buildings which are described before the conjunction "and" form one category and the "libraries which are open to public" which come after the conjunction "and" shall form a different category. 20. It is common knowledge that the word "and" is a conjunction which may take different meanings depending upon the context. The word "and" is both "conjunctive" and "disjunctive". Whether the word "and" functions as a "conjunctive" or "disjunctive" depends upon the context, in which, it is used. 21. Both in the old Rule 15(c) and the new Rule 15(c) the word "and" occurring between ‘hostels’ and ‘libraries’ has not been used between two complete sentences. On the other hand, the said conjunction has been used in the same sentence between two clauses. It would only give a cumulative sense to the entire sentence. However, the Division Bench while interpreting the old Rule 15(c) has held that, conjunction "and" found between the word ‘hostels’ and ‘libraries’ functions as a "disjunctive" between the clause preceding the conjunction and the clause following the conjunction. Since, it is the interpretation given by the Division Bench, I cannot take a different view as the interpretation given by the Division Bench binds me. 22. Since, it is the interpretation given by the Division Bench, I cannot take a different view as the interpretation given by the Division Bench binds me. 22. If one compares the old Rule 15(c) and the present Rule 15(c), it could be seen that the words "libraries which are open to public" have been replaced by "libraries run by the Government or local bodies and Institutions aided by Government". Previously, as held by the Division Bench, the libraries open to the public were exempted from house tax. If the same interpretation is adopted, it would emerge that under the present Rule 15(c), libraries run by the Government or local bodies are exempted. 23. Thereafter, there is yet another conjunction "and" which is followed by institutions aided by the Government, which may be interpreted that all the Institutions aided by the Government, whether it is for educational purpose or any other purpose are exempted from house tax. This is the way in which it is sought to be interpreted by the petitioners. 24. But for the newly added third proviso to Rule 15, I am sure that in view of the interpretation given by the Division Bench, the interpretation which is sought to be made by the petitioners shall be a correct interpretation. It is the best rule of interpretation that while interpreting a particular provision, a conjoint reading of the entire provision including the proviso in the given context should be made. If the newly added third proviso is read conjointly with Rule 15(c), in my considered opinion, there is no scope at all to accept the interpretation sought to be made by the petitioners. According to Rule 15(c) all Institutions aided from Government are exempted from house tax. But, according to the said proviso, if such aided institutions conduct self financing unaided courses, then they will not get the benefit of exemption. If this proviso is carefully looked into, it will certainly bring to light the intention of the law makers. If, those Institutions, which are aided, run self financing unaided courses, then they are liable to pay house tax. When that be so, the institutions conducting only self financing unaided courses cannot be exempted from paying house tax. If this proviso is carefully looked into, it will certainly bring to light the intention of the law makers. If, those Institutions, which are aided, run self financing unaided courses, then they are liable to pay house tax. When that be so, the institutions conducting only self financing unaided courses cannot be exempted from paying house tax. Had it been the intention of the law makers that the buildings used for educational purposes by any aided or unaided institutions are to be exempted then, the proviso clause would not have been introduced. If the interpretation made by the petitioners is accepted, then the third proviso will become meaningless. It is also the rule of interpretation that no interpretation could be given which would render any provision meaningless, ineffective or unenforceable. Thus, as rightly argued by the learned Additional Government Pleader, if a conjoint reading of the entire Rule 15(c) including the third proviso is made, what emerges is that, the educational institutions either aided or unaided if they run or if they conduct self financing unaided courses using the buildings, then, such buildings are not exempted from house tax under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. 25. In my considered opinion, this is the only interpretation which could advance the object of the Act. The object of exemption is to exempt the buildings which are run by the Government, local bodies, run on Government aid and public buildings used for certain purposes. Though, the conjunction "and" found between words ‘hostels’ and ‘libraries’ in the old Rule 15(c) was interpreted by the Division Bench as a "disjunctive", now in view of the third proviso added to the newly introduced Rule 15(c), the said word "and" cannot be interpreted as a disjunctive and the same should be interpreted as "conjunctive". So, to put it in nutshell, as per the present Rule 15(c), the following buildings alone are exempted from house tax:- .(i) Buildings used for educational purposes including hostels and libraries run by the Government; .(ii) Buildings used for educational purposes including hostels and libraries run by local bodies; (iii) Buildings used for educational purposes including hostels and libraries run by institutions aided by the Government which do not conduct self financing unaided courses. (iv) Buildings used for charitable purposes of sheltering the destitutes or animals. 26. (iv) Buildings used for charitable purposes of sheltering the destitutes or animals. 26. In this case, since the petitioners’ Institutions are not aided institutions and they are conducting self financing unaided courses, though the buildings are used for educational purposes, they do not fall under any of the categories enumerated in Rule 15(c) of the present rule and so, they cannot claim exemption from house tax. I hold that the buildings used by the petitioners’ Institutions are liable for house tax and thus, the impugned notices do not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 27. In the result, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.