Satish Chandra, C. J. - (1.) FINDING himself unable to agree with the views expressed by this Court in Nlrankar Nath v. Municipal Board, Faizabad, 1969 AWR (J) 6 = 1969 ALJ 519 a learned single Judge has referred the following question of law for decision by a larger Bench ; "Whether use of water by a hotel for its clients will be a commercial purpose or a domestic one as contemplated by section 2 (25) of the U. P. Municipalities Act."
(2.) IN the present case, the plaintiff-respondent ran a hotel and restaurant, called Elite Hotel, in the city of Gorakhpur. The Municipal Board of Gorakhpur supplied water to this hotel. It demanded payment for the water used by the hotel on non-domestic rates. It sent bills to the plaintiff-respondent on that basis. The plaintiff-respondent demurred. It took up the plea that the water supplied to the hotel was used by the persons residing in it for domestic purposes, like bathing, washing, using toilets, perparation of food for those residing in the hotel etc. It was a domestic purpose, as defined in the Municipalities Act. The Municipal Board was hence entitled to charge only at the rates prescribed for domestic supply of water. The Municipal Board did not accept this case. It sent a notice of disconnection to the plaintiff. Thereupon the plaintiff instituted the suit giving rise to the present appeal for an injunction restraining the defendant from disconnecting the water connection of the plaintiff's hotel. The trial court held that domestic use means use in a person's regular place of abode. The plaintiff himself did not reside in the hotel. It was not his house, but a place for running a trade of hotel. The ruling of this Court in Nirankar Nath's case was distinguished on the ground that in that case the petitioner himself also resided in the hotel. On lacts it was found that the owner of the hotel did not live in the premises. Customers alone lived and paid on monthly basis. They were like tenants or licencees. Tea and food etc. were prepared and sold to customers. The water was hence used for purposes of trade, and was as such liable to be charged at non-doemstic rates. On these findings the suit was dismssed.
(3.) THE plaintiff went up in appeal. THE lower appellate court held that Nirankar Nath's case was applicable. THE distinction drawn by the learned Munsif that the owner of the hotel was not himself living in it was not a valid point of distinction. THE use of the water is the distinguishing feature. THE plaintiff gives normal facilities to those coming to stay in the hotel, like water and electricity. THE use of water in the plaintiff's hotel was doemstic. THE defendant Board was entitled to charge at doemstic rates. On these findings the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. Aggrieved, the Municipal Board came up to this Court in Second Appeal.;