Hrishikesh Roy, C.J.

Heard Sri.Benjamin Paul, the learned counsel representing the appellant. Also

heard Sri.K.V.Jayadeep Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and

Sri.Ravikrishnan, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

2. The Assistant Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority (KWA), who was the 2^nd

respondent in the W.P.(C)No.39624 of 2017, is the Appellant before us. He challenges

the judgment dated 15.02.2019 whereby, the learned Judge concluded that the

premises belonging to the writ petitioner does not answer to the definition of “flat” or

“multistoried building”, as provided in sub-section (xa) or (xva) of the Kerala Water

Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Water Supply Act”).

Then, taking note of the fact that the total plinth area of the premises of the writ

petitioner is less than 1000 Sq.Mtrs. (excluding the car porch), the Court issued direction

to consider the application for water supply connection, by treating the writ petitioner's

premises to be a residential unit.

3. The learned counsel Sri.Benjamin Paul for the Kerala Water Authority submits

that the plinth area is not defined under the Water Supply Act but the expression is

defined under Section (2)(b)(f) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 and if

this definition of the plinth area, is accepted, the premises of the writ petitioner will have

to be treated as a “flat”.

: 3 :

4. However, having regard to the ratio in Naresh Kumar Madan v. State of M.P.

reported in (2007) 4 SCC 766 importing the definition given in another statute for the

purpose of interpretation may not be justified.

5. We might note that even if the definition under the Kerala Municipality Building

Rules is relied upon, it would be of no assistance to the appellant. This is because Rule

2(be) of the Building Rules defines “plinth”.

“Plinth” means the portion of a structure between the surface of the

surrounding ground and surface of the floor, first above the ground.”

6. As can be seen from the above definition, the car parking area in the cellar

portion being below the ground level, is excluded out of the plinth area and therefore,

even if the Building Rules are considered for assessing the plinth area of the writ

petitioner, no benefit would accrue to the Kerala Water Authority in their challenge to

the impugned judgment dated 15.2.2019. Consequently, the finding given in the

impugned judgment is upheld and the Writ Appeal filed by the Assistant Engineer of the

Kerala Water Authority is dismissed.

SD/-

HRISHIKESH ROY

CHIEF JUSTICE

SD/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE

jes