JUDGMENT

H. C. P. Tripathi, J. - By this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Municipal Board to revise the bill issued to him demanding payment of the use of water at the rate of Rs. 2/- per thousand gallon.

2. The undisputed facts, which are relevant to the question in controversy, are these.

3. Petitioner owns premises No. 1232 in Civil Lines, Faizabad in which he resides and also runs a residential hotel since 1953. The water supplied to the building by the Municipal Board is used by the petitioner and the tenants occupying different rooms for their drinking and bathing purposes. There is neither any lawn nor any flower garden attached with the premises and no part of water is used in watering the same. According to a notification No. 997-D/IX-B-564-61, dated 27th February, 1962, the Municipal Board charges for the supply of water for domestic and non-domestic use at the rate of Rs. 1/- and Rs. 2/- respectively per thousand gallon. The Municipal Board has sent a bill to the petitioner demanding payment at the rate of Rs. 2/-per thousand gallon with effect from 1st April, 1962, treating the water apply to his premises as for non-domestic use; hence this writ petition.

4. In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, there is no allegation that the water supplied to the petitioner's building is used for any purpose other than those mentioned in the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that as the water is used only for bathing, drinking and such other domestic purposes, the respondent Board has no authority to charge for its supply at the rate which is meant for water for non-domestic use. On the other hand, it has been contended by Sri Khare, learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Board, that as the petitioner is, admittedly, using his building on a commercial purpose, namely, for running a hotel, the water supplied to the building must be held to be one for non-domestic use. Learned counsel has invited my attention in this regard to Section 2 (25) of the Municipalities Act.

6. Section 2 (25) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (U. P. Act No. 11 of 1916) runs as follows :-

"2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context-

(25) "Water for domestic purposes" shall not include water for cattle, or for washing carriages, where the cattle, horses or carriages are kept for sale or hire or for any other commercial purpose or by a common carrier, or water for any trade, manufacture, or business, or for building purpose or for watering gardens not appurtenant to any dwelling house, or for fountains or for any ornamental purpose."

7. In terms of this Sub-section, water for any trade, manufacture, or business or for building purpose or for watering gardens, ROC appurtenant to Any dwelling house, or for fountains or for any ornamental purpose is not to be treated as water for domestic purposes. The question, therefore, which requires consideration is as to what was the intention of the Legislature in providing that water for any trade, manufacture or business was not to be treated as water for domestic purpose. Water for trade or business, in my opinion, signifies dealings for profit exclusively in water and water for manufacture means where water is used as a raw material for manufacturing or making a saleable commodity, e.g. ice and such other edibles. Where water is not used exclusively and directly as a commodity for sale or for fabricating some saleable material, its use for drinking and bathing purposes by those who are carrying on business of various denominations cannot be excepted from "water for domestic purposes" within the meaning of Section 2 (25) of the Act. Water used for meeting the bare physical necessities of drinking and bathing whether by the owner of the house or by his tenants is nothing else but for domestic use.

8. The question can be looked at from another standpoint. When the wate