THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IS JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING A SEPARATE NON-DOMESTIC CONNECTION TO A PREMISES WHERE THERE IS A SUSPICION THAT THE CONNECTION IS BEING SOUGHT TO BYPASS THE EFFECTS OF SECTION 275(AA) OF THE KMC ACT.

I.P. Mukerji

1. THE writ petitioner, Taj Mohammed runs a guest house called Taj Guest House at 7/2A, Gobind Dhar Lane, P.S. Burrabazar, Kolkata - 1. This guest house is situated on the ground floor of this premises. The writ petitioner claims to be a tenant of this ground floor under the respondent No.6, Kamal Hamid. He says he pays a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- to Kamal has not appeared.

2. HIS claim is that commercial water connection to the portion of the premises he occupies (for short 'Taj Guest House') be granted. The respondent, Kolkata Municipal Corporation refuses to grant such connection. Rival Contentions

Mr. Alok Ghosh, learned Counsel for the petitioner makes the following submissions:

(a) The premises always had a domestic connection. Extra charge on account of excess water supply for Taj Guest House had been raised by the said Corporation and paid.

(b) He has shown me amongst other sections, section 239 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and submits that a separate water supply for non-domestic purposes can be granted.

(c) As a tenant he has the right to receive such supply.

(d) The landlord only has domestic water supply which is not sufficient to meet his requirement.

3. ON the other hand, Mr. Ashok Dasadhikari, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Corporation has made the following submissions:

(a) The alleged landlord of the premises/respondent No.6 was a defaulter in the payment of property tax.

(b) In exercise of powers under section 275(aa) the Corporation exercise its rights to cutoff water connection to the premises,

(c) This alleged landlord/respondent No.6 filed another writ application in this Court, (the details of which could not be produced) where he has obtained an order of reconnection of his water supply upon paying of a part of the outstanding property tax. The rest remain unpaid.

(d) The writ petitioner is a front of this alleged landlord/respondent No.6 and he has been set up to obtain a non-domestic or commercial supply because the alleged landlord/ respondent No.6 apprehend that the existing water supply can be disconnected for non-payment of the outstanding property tax.

(e) No separate meter for a commercial water supply can be provided in a premises where there is an existing domestic water supply. Both the learned Counsel have taken me extensively to the relevant sections of the above Act being sections 193, 238, 239, 254, 255, 265B, 267 and 275(aa). I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. Discussion and Conclusion

4. THE real point in this matter is a consideration of section 275(l)(aa) which was inserted in the said Act by amendment with effect from 23rd March, 2001. It reads thus:

"275. Power of Municipal Commissioner to cut off or turn-off supply of water to premises.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Municipal Commissioner may cut off the connection between any water works of the Corporation and any premises to which water is supplied from such works, or may turn off such supply, in any of the following cases, namely:(a)........................................................ (aa) if, in respect of the premises, any taxes or rates or fees or charges are in arrear for payment for more than one year;".

Under this section water supply may be cut off if any tax or rates or fees or charges are not paid for more than one year. The sub-section does not specify any portion of the premises or any share of the taxes or rates, like, owner's part of the premises only or owners share of rates or taxes. Therefore, if property tax is outstanding for a premises, no matter whose share, the water supply to the entire premises is to be disconnected.

5. THE vires of this amendment has been challenged in the writ application but not pressed at all at the time of hearing.

6. IN that context the submission of Mr. Ashok Dasadhikari regarding the status of the writ petitioner and the bona fides of this application become very relevant. No date has