JUDGMENT M.C. Ghosh, J. - This is an application by the Defendants under sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The Municipal Commissioners of Dum Dum, Opposite Party No. 1, instituted a suit against the Defendants who are the owners of a house within Dum Dum Municipality. The Defendant had let out the house to one N. C. Banerjea. The said N. C. Banerjea drew excess water from the taps in the house and thereby incurred a claim of Its. 66-4-6 payable from April to December, 1933, for the excess water. The Commissioners tried to realise the same from him but he disappeared and filed a petition in insolvency but when the Commissioners opposed the petition he did not appear and the insolvency petition was dismissed. Since then, it is said that the whereabouts of the said N. C. Banerjea are not known and nothing can be realised from him. In the circumstances the Commissioners sued the Defendants who are the owners of the premises. The question is, is the Plaintiff entitled to realise the excess water rate from the Defendants who are the owners and not occupiers of the premises? The learned Munsif held that the water rate is payable by the owner under sec. 132 of the Bengal Municipal Act. The Court holds in spite of sec. 302 (2) that sec. 132 is wide enough to include the excess water tax. Further the Court refers to the bye-law? of the Municipality which provide that the excess water rate is to be levied from the owner or the occupier. 2. Upon hearing the learned Advocates on both sides it appears that the conclusion of the learned Munsif is wrong. In certain circumstances the excess water rate is to be levied from the owner under sec. 302 (3). The bye-law was made to provide for all cases of excess water rate. Therefore it had to mention both the owner and the occupier. Whether in the present case the Defendants are liable is to be gathered from the Act itself and not from the bye-laws. It is true that under sec. 132 any rate which is assessed on the annual value of the holding is payable by the owner of the holding. Therefore it had to mention both the owner and the occupier. Whether in the present case the Defendants are liable is to be gathered from the Act itself and not from the bye-laws. It is true that under sec. 132 any rate which is assessed on the annual value of the holding is payable by the owner of the holding. But this section is preceded by a clause " Except as otherwise provided by this Act." That excepting clause means that though generally any rate assessed on the annual value is to be payable by the owner, any section by which any other party is liable shall not be considered contrary to sec. 132. Now under sec. 302 (1) for the water rate which is levied on the annual value a certain quantity of water is to be consumed and for that rate the owner is liable. Under cl. (2) of sec. 302 all water consumed in excess of the allowance to which an occupier is entitled under sub-sec. (1) shall be paid for by him at a rate to be fixed from time to time by the Commissioners at a meeting. This means that when there is one occupier of a house under an owner and there is excess water consumed by the occupier, he, the occupier, shall be liable for the excess water. Cl. (3) provides that if such premises are occupied by two or more occupiers, then the owner will be liable to the Commissioners for the excess water and the owner will be entitled to recover from the several occupiers any amount so paid by him. In the present case N. C. Bannerjea was the sole occupier of the premises in question. He consumed water in excess of the allowance to which he was entitled under cl. (1) sec. 302. He therefore became liable for the excess water rate under cl. (2) of sec. 302. Sec. 302, cl. (2) makes the occupier liable for the excess water rate. It makes no mention in that sub-clause of the liability of the owner, though in the next very sub-section it makes the owner liable. On a fair reading therefore it is clear that under sub-sec. (2) the owner is not liable but the occupier is alone liable. Under sub-sec. (3) the owner is liable, but he may realise it from the several occupiers. On a fair reading therefore it is clear that under sub-sec. (2) the owner is not liable but the occupier is alone liable. Under sub-sec. (3) the owner is liable, but he may realise it from the several occupiers. When there is only one occupier, he alone is liable and not the owner. 3. It is urged on the other side that it is discretionary for the Court to allow a petition of this sort; that the Petitioner was himself the Vice-Chairman during the period when the excess water rate became due and the occupier made default in payment of the rates; that the Vice-Chairman is responsible for the loss. In reply it is stated that the Vice-Chairman has only so much power as is given to him by the Chairman; that within this I Municipality the Chairman kept in his file the issue of distress warrants for the rates in arrears and the power of stopping the supply of water remained with the Chairman. So though the Petitioner was the Vice-Chairman, it cannot be presumed that he had necessarily the power of realising the rate from the defaulting occupier. 4. The Rule is made absolute and the suit against the Defendant, so far as it relates to the Plaintiff's claim for excess water rate, is dismissed. Having regard to the circumstances, the parties will bear their own costs throughout.