JUDGMENT : The present writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India has been filed impugning Exts.P1, P3 and P6 orders passed by the Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority in respect of the building tax on the petitioner’s building situated in Puthencruz Village, Kunnathunad Taluk. The petitioner claims society registered under the Kerala Society registration Act. It is also stated that the society is engaged in charitable activities extending relief to the poor and needy. The petitioner was issued a notice in Ext.P1 proposing to impose building tax of Rs. 14,04,000/-. The assessing authority vide impugned order in Ext.P1(a) finalized the assessment of the building tax at Rs.14,04,000/-treating the building other building and non-residential building. The petitioner filed appeal against the said assessment order in Ext.P2. It is stated that the ownership of the building is with the society. The building has been constructed over an area of 550 Sq.M. The building is having apartments which are allotted to senior citizens and the same are occupied by senior citizens. It was said that each apartment should be assessed separately and the entire building should not be assessed as one unit. 2. It is also stated that the building is used purely for residential purposes by the senior citizens. The building has installation for rain water harvesting, waste treatment at source and also has applied for installation of solar panels and therefore, the building is entitled to the benefit of note 3 of the Schedule of the Act. 3. The 1st Appellate Authority examined the appeal. The report from Tahsildar was called for by the 1st Appellate Authority. The plinth area of the building is 4053.22 Sq.M. The petitioner society did not dispute the plinth area of the building for assessment. But the petitioner requested for tax exemption as charitable institution. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, the building is used as an old age home and a fixed amount is charged from the residents and fixed amount is also charged in every month for food and other needs. 4. The charge officer has inspected the building and reported that there is no difference in the total plinth area and there is a common kitchen and a common dining room besides apartments. 5. 4. The charge officer has inspected the building and reported that there is no difference in the total plinth area and there is a common kitchen and a common dining room besides apartments. 5. The Appellate Authority after examining the reports and submissions has held that the building is divided into different apartments and these apartments are allotted to senior citizens on payment of fixed deposits without interest on it. In addition to the fixed deposit, the occupants of the apartments are required to pay for food, maintenance and electricity charges in every month. Dining and kitchen area are built as common area. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid factual aspects, the Appellate Authority concluded that the said building could not be treated as flat or apartment. Interest free fixed deposits are being charged from the residents. In lieu of the monthly rent, the interest on the fixed deposits is taken by the institution. Therefore, the building is to be treated as lodge given to a person on rent. In view of the aforesaid findings, the appeal of the petitioner got rejected vide Ext.P3 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 13 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, before the District Collector, Ernakulam. A report was called for from the Revenue Divisional Officer by the District Collector. The petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard on 26.11.2019. Based on the reports of the Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar, the District Collector concluded that the building is divided into apartments for senior citizens and deposits are collected from them besides charges for food, maintenance, electricity are collected from the residents. There is common kitchen and dining hall. Therefore, the building cannot be considered as a flat or apartment. The petitioner’s contention that the petitioner society is a charitable society therefore, the building is eligible for exemption under the Section 3(1) has been repelled by the Revisional Authority inasmuch as the building is not used for religious or charitable purposes. 8. The petitioner’s claim for exemption up to 50% from the building tax on the ground of installation of rain water harvesting, waste treatment at source and solar panels are also installed was also not found favour. 8. The petitioner’s claim for exemption up to 50% from the building tax on the ground of installation of rain water harvesting, waste treatment at source and solar panels are also installed was also not found favour. Though in the Finance Act, 2013, it is provided that building with more than 185 Sq.M constructed after 01.04.2013 entitled for 50% concession from the building tax under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, but this concession is subject to issuance of the notification in this regard by the Government. No such notification has been issued by the Government till date, and in absence of the notification, the petitioner building is not entitled for exemption from payment of the building tax up to 50%. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the building is divided into apartments and those apartments are given to senior citizens, the primary nature of the building remains residential and therefore, the building ought to have been assessed as a residential building and not other building. He further submits that it does not make any difference that whether the fixed charge is collected from the senior citizens who are occupying the apartments or they are paying monthly rent. Relevant factor is the nature and the use of the building. None of the three authorities below be the Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority has recorded a finding of fact that the building is not used for residential purpose. Once the building is used for residential purpose, collection of rental would not be enough to categorize the building as other building for the purposes of assessing the building tax under the provisions the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to the extent, the building has been assessed as other building and not as a residential building is incorrect and against the provisions of the Act and therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside, and the matter be remanded back to the Assessing Authority to assess the building as a residential building under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. 10. Ms. Jasmin M.M, learned Government Pleader however submits that Section 2(l) defines the residential building. 10. Ms. Jasmin M.M, learned Government Pleader however submits that Section 2(l) defines the residential building. Close examination of the definition of the residential building with the relevant facts in the present case would clearly prove that the building cannot be categorized as the residential building, but other building for the purposes of assessing the building tax under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. She further submits that on examination of the reports submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar, the District Collector has recorded a finding that the building is not a residential building but it is used like a lodge and therefore, it has been assessed as other building. Such finding is not likely to be disturbed by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, she submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Section 2(l) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 defines the residential building as under: ‘residential building’ means a building or any other structure or part thereof built exclusively for residential purpose including outhouses or garages appurtenant to the building for the more beneficial enjoyment of the main building but does not include hotels, boarding places, lodges and the like.”. 12. From the definition of residential building, it is clear that, if a building is used exclusively for the residential purpose, it would be assessed as the residential building but, it would not include hotels, boarding places lodges etc. 13. The question before this Court is that whether the use of the building in the facts which are not in dispute is like boarding for senior citizens, or it is used like lodge or it can be said to be residential building though the senior citizens have been allotted the apartments in the building who have deposited fixed amount and they are also paying other usage charges and the building has common kitchen and dining hall. 14. The definition of the residential building excludes hotels, boarding places, lodges and the like. Thus, if the use of the building is like hotels, boarding places, lodges etc, the said building cannot be considered to be a residential building. 15. 14. The definition of the residential building excludes hotels, boarding places, lodges and the like. Thus, if the use of the building is like hotels, boarding places, lodges etc, the said building cannot be considered to be a residential building. 15. In the present case, though the apartments in the building have been given to the individual senior citizens but it has common kitchen and dining hall like a lodge or boarding place. The use of the building is residential but the factors as mentioned in the reports of Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar would disclose that the building is used like a lodge. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the three authorities have rightly concluded that the building cannot be treated to be a residential building but other building and the tax has been levied accordingly. In view thereof, I do not find any error of law or jurisdiction committed by the three authorities while holding the building to be like lodge etc., and therefore, the building has been taxed as other building. 16. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the building has provision for rain harvesting, waste treatment at source and solar panel, therefore the building is entitled to tax deduction up to 50% in view of the provisions of the Finance Act, 2013. The Finance Act, 2013, provides by inserting note 3 in the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, that the building constructed on or after 01.04.2013 and having plinth area of 185.87 Sq.M or more having installations for rain water harvesting, waste treatment at source and solar panels would be entitled for deduction of the building tax by 50%. However, the Finance Act also provides that the Government is required to issue the notification regarding measurement and specification of installation for rain water harvesting, waste treatment at source and solar panels. Till date no such notification has been issued for providing the specifications in respect of the aforesaid three things and in absence of the requisite notification, the claim for reduction of tax up to 50% cannot be granted. In view thereof, I find no substance in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition fails, which is hereby dismissed.