R. Bhaskaran, J.

The defendants in a suit for perpetual prohibitory injunction are the appellants in the second appeal. The defendants are admittedly tenants of a building owned by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants had tried to alter the building and the plaintiff obtained a decree in O.S. 129/1981 for injunction restraining them from doing so. Thereafter the plaintiff came to know that the defendants had approached the Municipality for giving water connection to the house. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants cannot get water connection without his permission. If the defendants are allowed to get water connection the building of the plaintiff will be damaged. Therefore the suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from drawing water connection to the plaint schedule premises.

2. The defendants filed written statement contending that water being an essential requirement they have got every right to get water from the municipal pipeline. Though there was a well near the plaint schedule building the plaintiff has put waste in the well and water is not pure for drinking. During the summer season there will bo no water in the well. Therefore drawing of pipe connection for drinking water is absolutely essential.

3. The trial court after taking the evidence disposed of the suit in the following manner:

“Under the circumstances it is only just and proper that the defendant be permitted to have the pipe line drawn to the premises without making any damage to the structure, and if the wall is to be pierced or floor is to be dug, it is imperative on the part of the defendant to obtain the prior permission form the landlord and in the absence of that the defendant can lay the pipe line in such a way that it shall not disturb the existing structure in any manner whatsoever. The defendant at the time of vacating the premises shall remove the pipe line and they are bound to hand over possession in such a state as it had been prior to the lying of the pipe line. Subject to the above observation these issues are answered against the plaintiff.”

The suit was ultimately dismissed.

4. The plaintiff filed appeal before the lower appellate court and the lower appellate court has allowed the appeal and granted a decree restraining the defendants from drawing water pipe connection to the plaint schedule building without written permission of the plaintiff. But it was made clear that the injunction will not be a bar for the defendants obtaining water connection to the courtyard of the building without touching the building. The reasoning of the lower appellate court is that the defendants 1 and 2 are under a contractual obligation not to commit any act of waste or damage to the demised premises during the subsistence of tenancy and they are duty bound to deliver the premises in good condition on terminating the tenancy. A tenant is not entitled to make structural alterations or additions without the consent of the landlord. It is also stated that whether the condition amounts to impairment of the building is to be looked into from the view point of the landlord. The lower appellate court found that since the defendants have no right to get water connection without permission of the plaintiff, the plaintiffs was entitled to get a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from drawing pipe connection to the plaint schedule building.

5. In this second appeal the following questions of law have been formulated at the time of admission:

1. Does the act of laying a pipe line for supply of drinking water amount to an act injurious to a building?

2. Is the laying of a water supply connection an act of prudent use referable to Sec.108 of the Transfer of Property Act?

6. Drinking water is an absolute necessity for human existence. By drawing pipe line to the building in which the defendants are residing it cannot be said that the building will be in any way damaged or wasted.