Kerala High Court
Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala ... vs K. Seetharama Rao on 22 March, 1999
Equivalent citations: AIR1999KER357, AIR 1999 KERALA 357, (1999) 2 KER LT 624
Author: P.K. Balasubramanyan
Bench: P.K. Balasubramanyan
JUDGMENT Balasubramanyan, J.
1. Respondent in the Original Petition, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority is the appellant. The respondent approached this Court with the Original Petition praying for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P5 order passed by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority refusing to accept the case of the respondent that the restaurant and the lodge in the hotel should be treated separately and that the water consumed in the lodging house should be billed on the basis of domestic consumption. The Assistant Executive Engineer took the view that even though licence has been created in respect of the restaurant in favour of one Ramesh Bhat, the entity of restaurant and lodging house continued to be one and hence liable to be charged as such for the consumption of water. The learned single Judge took the view that there was no reason not to accept the licence transaction dated 21-1-1984 entered into between the owner of the hotel, the consumer under the Water Authority and Ramesh Bhat regarding the running of the restaurant. The learned Judge further held that the water consumed at the lodging house, which was continued to be run by the consumer, was liable to be charged only at domestic rates. In the memorandum of appeal what the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority has contended is that rates were being levied only on the basis of the Government under D/-14-10-1991 referred to in the memorandum of appeal and since the billing of the lodging house was on the basis of the modified order the learned Judge was in error in directing that the lodging house be treated separately and charged only at the rates applicable to domestic consumers.
2. Section 37 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 defines supply of water for domestic purposes. It is an exclusive definition in the sense that the Section describes uses of water which are not to be considered as for domestic purposes. Section 37(a) states that supply of water for the purpose of any commerce or trade, manufacture or business would be a non domestic purpose. Section 37(f) provides that supply of water for consumption and use at restaurants or by inmates of hotels, boarding houses, lodging-cum-boarding houses or residential clubs and for baths used by such inmates shall not be domestic purpose. In Ext. P5 order passed by the Assistant Executive Engineer he had not accepted the arrangement came to between the consumer, the owner of the hotel and one Ramesh Bhat regarding the running of the restaurant. The learned single Judge took the view that there was no reason not to accept the validity of the transaction between the original owner of the hotel and Ramesh Bhat. It is open to the owner of the hotel to grant the right to run the restaurant to another individual on the basis of a license or some other arrangement. There is no material on the basis of which the Assistant Executive Engineer could have come to the conclusion that a transaction between the owner of the hotel and Ramesh Bhat was factitious or was not acted upon. We are, therefore, inclined to agree with the learned single Judge when the learned Judge took the view that the restaurant has to be treated separately from the lodging house.
3. The learned single Judge further held that the lodging house must be charged only at domestic rates. Counsel for the respondent, the consumer, submits that this is justified in view of Section 37(f) of the Act. Counsel points out that only supply of water to the inmates of hotels, boarding houses and lodging-cum-boarding houses would make the supply one for non-domestic purpose and all other supplies would be a domestic purpose. As is well-known, the lodging house differs from a boarding house. The idea of boarding carries with the idea of supplying food. In a lodging house only persons are permitted to reside and it is for their needs that the water is being used and, this, according to counsel, would be a domestic purpose, especially, considering the fact that under Section 37(f) of the Act, use by the lodgers in a lodging house is not to be treated as use for a non-domestic purpose. Though there may be some substance in this argument on behalf of the consumer, we find that the nature of the activity carried on in running a lodging house would come within the expression "business" included in Section 37(a) of the Act. Under Section 37(a), supply of water for the purpose of commerce or trade, manufacture or business is treated as non-domestic. Considering the sweep of activities referred to in Clause (a), we are not inclined to accept the argument of counsel for the consumer that the word "business" occurring therein must be ejusdem generis with manufacture or trade. We think that the expression "business" must be given its ordinary meaning and we have no hesitation in holding that running a lodging house is a business in the ordinary sense of the term. The running of lodging house involves making of a profit by permitting others to lodge in the building. The dictionary meaning of the expression "domestic" is, of the home, household, or family affairs. In this context, the expression "business" occurring in Section 37(a) of the Act must be construed in its natural sense so as to include the activity of running a lodging house. We are, therefore, satisfied that the learned Single Judge was in error in directing that the consumption of the water for the lodging house should be charged only at the domestic rate. While, therefore, we uphold the finding that the restaurant business and the running of the lodging house was being done at the relevant time by different persons and the assessment for both cannot be clubbed together, we hold that the consumer of the water in the lodging house is liable to pay rates for the water consumed at non-domestic rates and not at domestic rates. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority would be entitled to proceed on that basis for collection of the water charges for the lodging house.
4. We, thus, allow the Writ Appeal in part and modify the decision of the learned Single Judge.