JUDGMENT P. Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. The main question arising for decision in these writ appeals turns on the interpretation of sections 170 and 171 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). We shall extract those sections in full. "170. Private water supply for domestic consumption and use and the powers of commissioner to enforce provision of water supply.” (1) The commissioner may on application by the owner or occupier of any building arrange in accordance with the bye-laws to supply water thereto for domestic consumption and use: Provided that the commissioner shall not without the sanction of the standing committee agree to supply water to any building assessed at an annual value of less than one hundred and twenty rupees. (2) Whenever it appears to the commissioner that any dwelling house assessed at an annual value of not less than one hundred and twenty rupees is without a proper supply of water for domestic consumption and use and that such a supply can be furnished from a main not more than one hundred feet distant from any part of such building, the commissioner may by notice require the owner to obtain such supply and to execute all such works as may be necessary for that purpose in accordance with the bye-laws. (3) It shall not be lawful for the owner of any dwelling house assessed at an annual value of not less than one hundred and twenty rupees which may be constructed or re-constructed after the commencement of this Act, to occupy it or cause or permit it to be occupied until he has obtained a certificate from the commissioner that there is provision within or within a reasonable distance of the house such a supply of wholesome water as appears to the commissioner to be sufficient for domestic consumption and use of the inmates of the house. (4) Where on any land there are two or more superstructures the annual value of each of which is less than one hundred and twenty rupees and the owner of the land is not the owner of all the superstructures, the commissioner may, if it appears to him that the superstructures are without a proper supply of water for domestic consumption and use and that such a supply can be furnished from a main not more than one hundred feet distant from any part of any such superstructure, by notice require the owner of the land to obtain such supply. (5) For all water supplied under this section, in excess of a maximum determined by regulations of the standing committee, payment shall be made at such times and under such conditions as may be laid down in such regulations and shall be recoverable in the same manner as the water and drainage tax. Explanation. : ”Supply of water for domestic consumption and use shall not be deemed to include a supply” (a) for any trade, manufacture or business; (b) for gardens or for purposes of irrigation; (c) for building purpose; (d) for fountains, swimming baths, public baths, or tanks or for any ornamental or mechanical purposes; (e) for animals, where they are kept for sale or hire or for the sale of their produce or any preparation therefrom; or (f) for washing vehicles where they are kept for sale or hire, but shall be deemed to include a supply”- (i) for flushing latrines or drains; (ii) for all baths other than swimming baths or public baths; (iii) for the consumption and use of inmates of hotels, boarding houses and residential clubs, and for baths used by such inmates; (iv) for the consumption and use of persons resorting to theatres and cinemas; (v) for extinguishing fire; and (vi) for making or for watering streets: Private Water Supply for Non-domestic purposes. 171. Commissioners power to supply water for non-domestic purposes at rates fixed by the standing committee.”(1) The commissioner may, with the sanction of the standing committee supply water for any purpose, other than domestic consumption and use on receiving a written application specifying the purpose for which such supply is required and the quantity likely to be consumed. 171. Commissioners power to supply water for non-domestic purposes at rates fixed by the standing committee.”(1) The commissioner may, with the sanction of the standing committee supply water for any purpose, other than domestic consumption and use on receiving a written application specifying the purpose for which such supply is required and the quantity likely to be consumed. (2) For all water supplied under sub-section (1) payment shall be made at such rates and such conditions shall be imposed as may be laid down by the standing committee by general or special order and the amount shall be recoverable in the same manner as the property tax.� W. A. Nos. 482, 486 and 494 of 1973: 2. These writ appeals relate to the supply of water to cinemas and theatres. W. A. Nos. 485, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 522, 534 and 535 of 1973 and 119 and 142 of 1974: 3. In this batch of cases the question is regarding the supply of water to hotels and restaurants. W.A. Nos. 495 and 531 of 1973: 4. The appellants herein are the owners of the Ice Factories and the question relates to the supply of water to those factories. 5. The contention of the appellants can be stated very briefly in the words of the House of Lords in Metropolitan Water Board v. Avery, (1914) A.C. 118 "The test of domestic purposes is not whether the water is consumed or used in the course of the trade but whether the user of the water is in its nature domestic" To elaborate the argument, what was submitted was that in the cases before us, excepting those relating to the supply of water to the Ice Factories the water taken from the corporation has been used mostly for domestic purposes as it has been understood and clarified by the House of Lords. The user to which the water has been put related to the normal use to which water is put in an ordinary home, namely, for washing, bathing, cooking etc. It was emphasised that water being thus used for domestic purposes, it does not matter that it has been consumed in the course of carrying on the business , of hotels and restaurants or cinemas and theatres and therefore the entire supply of water made for those purposes should be charged not at the rate of Rs. It was emphasised that water being thus used for domestic purposes, it does not matter that it has been consumed in the course of carrying on the business , of hotels and restaurants or cinemas and theatres and therefore the entire supply of water made for those purposes should be charged not at the rate of Rs. 1.75 p. per 1000 litres as specified in the resolution passed by the Standing Committee pursuant to the power conferred on the committee by sub-section 2 of section 171 but at the rate applicable to the supply of water for domestic purposes. There can be little doubt that support can be gained for this submission from the observations of the House of Lords in the abovementioned decision, if the circumstances under which those observations were made and the statutory provisions which were interpreted by the House of Lords are not borne in mind. The Act that came up for consideration, was the Metropolitan Water Board (Charges) Act, 1907, for short the 1907 Act. It will be useful to refer to sections 8, 16, 20 and 25 of that Act and we are extracting those sections in an appendix to this judgment. The House of Lords had to construe sections 8 and 25 of that Act in The Metropolitan Water Board v. Avery. The supply of water in that case was admittedly obtained by the occupier of the premises under section 8 of the 1907 Act. The Board apparently only wanted the question of what is meant by the expression "domestic purposes" occurring in section 8 being clarified and it was certainly not in the interests of those to whom water had been supplied to contend that the supply was nor under section 8 or that the supply should have been under section 20 of the above Act. So it is clear that the decision involved only an interpretation of sections 8 and 25 of the 1907 Act. The observations in the judgment will be useful only for the purpose of understanding the scope of sections 8 and 25 of the 1907 Act, or for interpreting sections which are similarly worded when they occur in statutes which have a scheme akin to the scheme of the 1907 Act. The observations in the judgment will be useful only for the purpose of understanding the scope of sections 8 and 25 of the 1907 Act, or for interpreting sections which are similarly worded when they occur in statutes which have a scheme akin to the scheme of the 1907 Act. We shall presently refer to the scheme of the Act, but before that it will be useful to refer to the English decisions which had occasion to understand the scope of the pronouncement of the House of Lords. We shall first refer to the decision in Oddenino v. Metropolitan Water Board (1914) 2 Ch.734. The plaintiff therein used to get water supplied to him by measure from the Board. On 16th February 1914 he asked for supply of water to the house under section 8; that is for domestic purposes. This was refused by the Board and the suit followed. The house or the building concerned was admittedly used as a restaurant. Dealing with the question as to whether the supply of water could be demanded under section 8 of the 1907 Act Sargant, J. observed at page 738 of the judgment as follows: "In this case it is clearly established that the water supply taken by the plaintiff has, in the words of Lord Atkinson in Metropolitan Water Board v. Avery, been ˜supplied directly in and for the business and has been used in the conduct of the business. The evidence is quite clear that the water has been used for the various purposes for which the business is carried on. In view of that fact I should have thought, apart from the authorities to which I am about to refer, that the terms of section 20 had obviously been brought into play. The house or building is being used for a trade purpose, namely carrying on the business of a restaurant, for which water is used, and that being so, the Board are entitled prima facie on the obvious construction of section 20 to refuse a supply of water otherwise than by meter. That view was obviously the view of both of the parties to the present action until the occurrence of certain decisions to which I am about to refer, and the supply has been given accordingly. That view was obviously the view of both of the parties to the present action until the occurrence of certain decisions to which I am about to refer, and the supply has been given accordingly. What has originated, and very properly originated, the claim made in this action is a series of decisions culminating in one in the House of Lords in Metropolitan Water Board v. Avery approving Pidgeon v. Great Yarmouth Waterworks Co. and Colley's Patents v. Metropolitan Water Board. The net effect of those decisions has been to put an interpretation on the words 'domestic, purposes as used in section 8 of the Act, but not necessarily to put any interpretation upon any words used in section 20 of the Act. The phrase domestic purposes does not occur in section 20, and the actual phrase used in section 25 any trade, manufacture or business does not occur in section 20, though section 20 does use a more or less analogous phrase, trade or manufacturing purpose. Now I rather protest against introducing confusion in a case where the language of an Act is reasonably clear with regard to the material section by referring to decisions on an altogether different section of the Act which by the unanimous testimony of all the judges who have dealt with it is an extremely ill-drafted and confusing section, and unless I am bound to do so by the force of those decision I do not feel disposed to alter the construction which ought in my mind to be put upon the fairly plain words of section 20. Further, on a careful consideration of Metropolitan Water Board v. Avery it seems to me that the real effect of that decision is that where water is not only being supplied for domestic purposes, but is also being supplied for those purposes in the course of a trade or business carried on by the person taking the supply, then the fact that it is supplied for domestic purposes is of more importance than the fact that it is being used in a trade or business. In fact, to use the words of Lord Dunedin those words in section 25 any trade, manufacture or business do not actually define the expression domestic purposes, but constitute a warning note to provide against an undue inflation of the term 'domestic purposes. In fact, to use the words of Lord Dunedin those words in section 25 any trade, manufacture or business do not actually define the expression domestic purposes, but constitute a warning note to provide against an undue inflation of the term 'domestic purposes. An example of an extension of the term which might be prohibited by those words has occurred to me as follows: An owner might be carrying on in his own house a trade or business in the ordinary sense, and he might be taking in the course of that trade or business a supply of water for purposes clearly not domestic in the ordinary sense of the word. In that case the warning note in the section prevents its being said that the supply was a supply for domestic purposes because the trade, manufacture, or business was carried on domestically that is within the house of the user. But however that may be, I cannot find that the effect of section 25 is in any way to put a definition for "the purposes of the other sections of the Act on the word trade or on the word "manufacture". The net result really is that when, as Lord Atkinson puts it, water is supplied directly in and for a business, and is used in the conduct of it, nevertheless, if the business is such that the use of the water is for domestic purposes, that use is covered by the flat rate paid under section 8. Buckley, L. J. put it very clearly in words which are adopted by the House of Lords, that the test really is the purpose for which the water was being used and not the character of the building in which the water was being used. That is unquestionably so under section 8 coupled with section 25, but in my judgment the test indicated by section 20 is precisely the contrary of that arising under section 8 and section 25. In my opinion, on the clear language of section 20 the test is the character of the house to which the water is being supplied and not the purpose to which the water is actually being put ................ 6. In my opinion, on the clear language of section 20 the test is the character of the house to which the water is being supplied and not the purpose to which the water is actually being put ................ 6. We may also refer to the decision in Barrett v. Ilkeston Corporation (1917) 1 K.B. 827 (3) in which sections 80 and 83 of the Ilkestone and Heanor Water Act, 1901 came up for construction before the High Court in England. Sections 80 and 83 of that Act were in these terms:” 80. (1) Each constituent authority shall at the request of the owner or occupier of any dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house entitled to demand from such authority a supply of water for domestic purposes furnish to such owner or occupier a sufficient supply of water for such domestic purposes at rates not exceeding the rates per annum hereinafter specified (that is to say) ... Where such rateable value exceeds twenty pounds the rate of six pounds per centum upon such rateable value." 83. (1) Neither constituent authority shall be bound to supply with water otherwise than by measure any building used partly as a dwelling-house and partly as a warehouse or for any trade or manufacturing purpose for which water is required or any workhouse hospital or other large public institution. (2) Where the constituent authority refuse to supply with water any building referred to in this section otherwise than by measure they shall on the application of the occupier of such building supply the same with sufficient water for domestic purposes at a rate not exceeding one shilling and six pence for every thousand gallons and the moneys payable to the constituent authority under this section shall be recoverable in the same manner as rates due to the constituent authority for water. Provided that the constituent authority shall not be compelled to afford to any premises a supply of water by measure for a less sum in any one quarter of a year than the amount of the rate which would have been payable in respect of such premises for a supply of water otherwise than by measure.' 7. Provided that the constituent authority shall not be compelled to afford to any premises a supply of water by measure for a less sum in any one quarter of a year than the amount of the rate which would have been payable in respect of such premises for a supply of water otherwise than by measure.' 7. A glance at the above sections will indicate that section 80 is similar to section 8 of the 1907 Act construed by the House of Lords and section 83 is similar to section 20 of the 1907 Act construed by the House of Lords. No section similar to section 25 of that Act has been construed in the decision. But the expression domestic purpose finds a place in section 80 and perhaps section 80 can be said to be a combination of sections 8 and 25 of the 1907 Act construed by the House of Lords in Metropolitan Water Board v. Avery (1914) A.C. 118. There is a passage at page 830 of the judgment in Barrett v. Ilkestone Corporation (1917) 1 K.B, 827 (3) which is apposite. We shall extract that passage. I should have had no difficulty in deciding that the plaintiff comes within section 83 and not within section 80, were it not for the decision of the House of Lords in Metropolitan Water Board v. Avery ; and in referring to that case I should add that, if the question which I have to decide were as to the purpose for which the water supplied to the plaintiff is used, I am satisfied that on the authority of that case the purpose is a domestic purpose. At first sight, and but for the distinction which I have pointed out, the question in that case would seem to have been the same as arises in this case, and the decision of the House of Lords was that the water was used for domestic purposes. But the Metropolitan Water Board (Charges) Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. clxxi.), contains a section, section 20, which is in substance to the same effect as section 83 of this local Act, and, if my view of section 83 is right, section 20 would have been a short answer to the contention raised by the appellants in the House of Lords as to the meaning of section 25. 7, c. clxxi.), contains a section, section 20, which is in substance to the same effect as section 83 of this local Act, and, if my view of section 83 is right, section 20 would have been a short answer to the contention raised by the appellants in the House of Lords as to the meaning of section 25. But, again, I think the explanation suggested by Mr. Rigby Swift is the right one. The appellants, the Metropolitan Water Board, were seeking to get the House of Lords to determine what are, and what are not, domestic purposes, and therefore, it did not suit them to rely on section 20, for if they had they would not have obtained the decision which they wanted. Similarly, the respondent did not rely on section 20, for the simple reason that if she had done so she would have been out of Court. That is the view of Averys Case taken by Sargant, J. in Oddeninos Case, where he said: I think also that sub-section 2 of section 83 supports the view that section 83 is concerned with the character of the house 8. We shall refer to one more decision in Barnard Castle Urban District Council v. Wilson (1902) 2 Ch. 746. Sections 12 and 53 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1863 and 1847 came up for construction therein. The above sections were in these terms: "12. A supply of water for domestic purposes shall not include a supply of water for cattle, or for horses, or for washing carriages where such horses or carriages are kept for sale or hire or by a common carrier, or a supply for any trade, manufacture, or business, or for watering gardens, or for funtains, or for any ornamental purpose."� "53. Every owner and occupier of any dwelling-house within the limits of the special Act shall be entitled to demand and receive from the undertakers a sufficient supply of water for his domestic purposes.� Vaughan Williams. L.J. observed thus:”- I also agree with Buckley, J. that the fact that a house is used for the purpose of a business does not prevent the use of water for domestic purposes within that house. The mere fact that in such a house there is a swimming-bath does not make the supply of water to the bath a supply for the purposes of the business. The mere fact that in such a house there is a swimming-bath does not make the supply of water to the bath a supply for the purposes of the business. It may still be a supply for the domestic purposes of the residents in the house. The conclusion at which Buckley, J. arrived was that this swimming-bath was used in order that the occupation of the house by the boys might be a healthy one ; and if that were so, the supply of water to the bath would be for domestic purposes, and not for the business of the school. It is said that this conclusion of fact is wrong, and that we ought to hold that the bath is really used for the purpose of teaching swimming to the boys. I understand that my learned brethren have come to the conclusion that this is the object of the bath, and I do not wish to differ from them upon this question of fact, though I should have preferred to have further information upon this point. I assent, therefore, to the appeal being allowed, on the ground that the bath is used for the purpose of making the teaching of the school more effectual, and not for the purpose of making the occupation of the house more convenient 9. Romer, L. J. observed in the same case as follows: I am not prepared to hold that in every case a supply of water to a swimming-bath constructed by the occupier of a house would be a supply for domestic purposes. Suppose an occupier who had a large garden chose to construct in it a large swimming-bath for his pleasure or recreation: in such a case, in my opinion, he would not be entitled to require a water company to supply water to the bath. Looking at the circumstances of the present case, I think the water for the bath is not required for domestic purposes� 10. And Stirling, L.J. observed: - For myself I am not prepared to say that, if the occupier of a house constructed a swimming-bath for the use of himself and his household, a supply of water to it would not be for domestic purposes. For the present purpose I will assume that it would. And Stirling, L.J. observed: - For myself I am not prepared to say that, if the occupier of a house constructed a swimming-bath for the use of himself and his household, a supply of water to it would not be for domestic purposes. For the present purpose I will assume that it would. But if the occupier carried on the business of teaching swimming and used the bath for the purpose of giving lessons in swimming, in my opinion that would not be a use of the water for domestic purpose� 11. So it was held that the water supplied for the swimming pool in which teaching lessons were given for a fee would not be a use of the water for domestic purposes within the meaning of section 12 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1863. 12. No doubt these decisions will not be directly applicable for construing the provisions of the Act. But they are of immense help in giving a broad perspective as to the approach to be made in interpreting the sections of the Act with which we are concerned in these cases. We would like to add that in construing the sections of the Act we cannot approach the question in the manner in which the House of Lords, in Metropolitan Water Board v. Avery's case, 1914 A.C. 118 looked at sections 8 and 25 of the 1907 Act because the scheme of the Act is quite different from that of the 1907 Act. The Act does not provide for the supply of water to a premises in which or in any part of which a business is carried on, a supply for which provision is made in section 20 of the 1907 Act. Similar seems to be the scheme of the Act, the Ilkeston and Heanor Water Act, 1901, sections 80 and 83 of which were construed in Barrett v. Ilkeston Corporation, (1917) 1 K,B, 827 Section 80 emphasises a dwelling house whereas section 83 talks of any building and hence the observation already extracted that sub-section 2 of section 83 supports the view that section 83 is concerned with the character of the house. Under the Act no distinction is made on the basis of supply to a premises wherein or in any part of which a business or trade or manufacturing process is carried on and to premises where no such activity is carried on. The emphasis is mainly on the purpose for which the water is supplied. So the first paragraph of section 170 (1) of the Act has provided: "170 (1). The commissioner may on application by the owner or occupier of any building arrange in accordance with the bye- law to supply water thereto for domestic consumption and use.� Then after four more sub-sections there is an explanation stating that supply of water for domestic consumption and use shall not be deemed to include a supply” (a) for any trade, manufacture or business; and so forth. clauses (a) to (f) which indicate what is not supply for domestic consumption and use are followed by an enumeration of what shall be deemed to be included in a supply for domestic purposes. There are six matters mentioned here as items (i) to (vi); Three of them are important for the purpose of these cases and We " "extract them. (i) for flushing latrines or drains (ii) ......... (iii) for the consumption and use of inmates of hotels boarding houses and residential clubs, and for baths used by such inmates; (iv) for the consumption and use of persons resorting to theatres and cinemas ..... 13. It will be noticed from the wording of the sections which we have extracted that the water to be supplied on the application of the owner or occupier of any building. The building envisaged will apparently include a dwelling house, hotels, lodges and many other buildings used for various purposes. No classification has been made under the scheme of the Act based on the nature of the building to which water is supplied. There is no provision in the Act differentiating between buildings on the basis of the purpose for which the buildings are used. Even so it will have to be found out whether the supply of water was for any trade, manufacture or business and if the supply be found to be for any trade, manufacture or business, whether the latter part of the explanation, which contains what may be termed as inclusive part taking within its ambit specific users as detailed, is attracted. If any of these clauses in the latter part of the explanation is attracted, notwithstanding the fact that the supply was for the trade, manufacture or business, the occupier or the owner will be entitled to have the water supplied at domestic rates. We may here extract once again sections 170 (5) and 171 (2) for the sake of easy reference. "170 (5) For all water supplied under this section, in excess of a maximum, determined by regulations of the standing committee, payment shall be made at such times and under such conditions as may be laid down in such regulations and shall be recoverable, in the same manner as the water and drainage tax. Explanation.: ”Supply of water for domestic consumption and use shall not be deemed to include a supply” (a) for any trade, manufacture or business; (b) for gardens or for purposes of irrigation; (c) for building purpose; (d) for fountains, swimming baths, public baths, or tanks or for any ornamental or mechanical purposes': (e) for animals, where they are kept for sale or hire or for the sale of their, produce or any preparation therefrom; or (f) for washing vehicles where they are kept for sale or, hire, but shall bee deemed to include a supply- (i) for flushing latrine or drains; (ii) for all baths other than swimming baths or public baths; (iii) for the consumption and use of inmates of hotels, boarding houses and residential clubs, and for baths used by such inmates; (iv) for the consumption and use of persons resorting to theatres and cinemas; (v) for extinguishing fire; and (vi) for making or for watering streets. 171 (2) For all water supplied under sub-section (1) payment shall be made at such rates and such conditions shall be imposed as may be laid down by the standing committee by general or special order and the amount shall be recoverable in the same manner as the property tax.� 14. The resolution which is the subject of attack in this batch of cases is that passed under sub-section (2) of section 171 of the Act. 15. Section 170 (1) deals with private water supply for domestic consumption and use. The resolution which is the subject of attack in this batch of cases is that passed under sub-section (2) of section 171 of the Act. 15. Section 170 (1) deals with private water supply for domestic consumption and use. But we consider that the scheme of the Act which does not provide for any distinction between supply to a dwelling house or a premises where any business, trade or manufacture is carried on and the wording of the explanation which is intended to clarify domestic consumption and use or at least to indicate what is domestic consumption and what is not to the extent to which it does must also be borne in mind in determining in what circumstances the supply of water can be treated as that for domestic consumption and use. The explanation starts by saying that the supply of water for any trade, manufacture or business is excluded from supply for domestic consumption and use. If the same interpretation is given to this portion of the explanation as has been given to section 25 of the 1907 Act by the House of Lords the conclusion should be that the water supplied to a hotel or restaurant or a lodge would be a supply for domestic consumption. If the entire supply of water to a hotel is for domestic consumption, we fail to see the necessity for the provision in the inclusive part of the explanation as contained in clauses (i) and (iii) which we have extracted above. This inclusive part can be understood in different ways; as intended merely to clarify the position or as an exception to supply of water which has to be regarded as a supply for non-domestic purpose. Considering the scheme of the Act which does not differentiate between supply to a house or building where no business is carried on and supply to a house or building or premises where or in any part of which a business or trade is carried on, it would not be proper to approach the question in the manner in which it had been approached by the House of Lords in Averys case. We must emphasise that the House of Lords was concerned with a supply of water under section 8 of the 1907 Act and the contention was that the water so supplied for domestic consumption to a premises was utilised by the occupier for a non-domestic purpose. When there was a provision specifically for supply of water for non-domestic purposes to certain premises (section 20 of the 1907 Act) it was possible and we may say easy to conclude that the user to which the water was put was a domestic user. The ambit of the decision of the House of Lords has been clearly explained in Oddenine v. Metropolitan Water Board and Barratt v. Ilkeston Corporation. We have therefore to understand the inclusive part of the definition as bringing within the expression water supplied for domestic consumption, water supplied for the purposes enunciated therein, which would not otherwise be regarded as water supplied for domestic purposes. If the explanation is so read water supplied for any trade, manufacture or business� will have to be understood with reference to the person to whom water is supplied. If the person to whom water is supplied is carrying on a trade or business or manufacture and the water supplied is used mainly or largely for the purpose of his trade or manufacture or business, though actually utilised by his customers for domestic consumption� the supply would still, be for the purpose of trade or manufacture or business. The supply of water to hotels and restaurants will thus be a supply for trade or manufacture or business. What is to be seen is, is the water being used by the person to whom it is supplied for the purpose of his business. In the case of supply to a person running a hotel, though the use of the water by the inmates or even by those who visit the hotel or the restaurant attached to it would be domestic in nature, it appears to us that the person to whom the water is supplied is using the water for the purpose of his business. In the case of supply to a person running a hotel, though the use of the water by the inmates or even by those who visit the hotel or the restaurant attached to it would be domestic in nature, it appears to us that the person to whom the water is supplied is using the water for the purpose of his business. A person running a restaurant will require water for his trade or business; for cooking, for washing utensils and for the other needs of those who visit the hotel or the restaurant. The user to which the water is put by those who stay in a hotel or a restaurant is domestic in nature. But the user to which the proprietor who gets the water from the corporation is putting it is for business purpose, for, he cannot run a restaurant or a hotel or a lodge without providing water for the inmates and those who visit the restaurant. It is therefore an essential material necessary to enable him to run his business. The very nature of the business indicates that a large quantity of water is required for the purpose of his business. Here we would like to draw a distinction between water supplied to a factory for drinking purposes of the workmen employed therein, and for a business such as that of hoteliers. In the former case water is not such an essential factor for the actual carrying on of the business. It is not an essential material to enable the occupant of the factory to carry on his business in the factory. Whereas no hotel or restaurant business can be carried on without a plentiful supply of water. Water is as it were a raw material in such cases for the purpose of the business. The hoteliers or the restaurant keepers naturally take the quantity of water used by their customers into consideration in determining their charges. The scheme of the Act requires such an interpretation of the explanation. Water is as it were a raw material in such cases for the purpose of the business. The hoteliers or the restaurant keepers naturally take the quantity of water used by their customers into consideration in determining their charges. The scheme of the Act requires such an interpretation of the explanation. To use the words of Sargant J. which we have already quoted: "In this case it is clearly established that the water supply taken by the plaintiff has, in the words of Lord Atkinson in Metropolitan Water Board v. Avery, been ˜supplied directly in and for the business and has been used in the conduct of' the business" This interpretation is in accordance with the interpretation of section 12 of the Water Works Clauses Act, 1863 and 1847 in Barnerd Castle Urban District Council v. Wilson (1902) 2 Ch.746. The swimming pool therefor which water was required and which was utilised for giving swimming lessons for a fee was treated as water supplied for a business. Similarly water supplied to a hotel or lodge or restaurant is water supplied directly in and for� the business and is to be used in the conduct of� the business. It will thus be water supplied for a trade or business. 16. Following the House of Lords decision in Averys case a different view from that indicated by us has been taken by the Indian High Courts. The Calcutta High Court in re: Nani Lal Ray v. Satvendra Nath Ray 54 C.W.N. 42, interpreted section 3 (24) of the Calcutta Municipal Act by applying the decision of the House of Lords in Averys case. Section 3(24) is in these terms:” "3. For the purposes of this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,” (24) a supply of water for domestic purposes shall not be deemed to include a supply” (a) for animals or for washing carriages, where such animals or carriages are kept for sale or hire, (b) for any trade, manufacture or business, (c) for fountains, (d) for watering gardens or streets, (e) for any ornamental or mechanical purpose, (j ) for building purposes, or (g) for flushing purposes.� It may be noticed that section 3 (24) of the above Act did not contain an inclusive part as in the explanation to section 170 of the Act. 17. 17. The Calcutta decision as well as the House of Lords decision have been followed by the Madras High Court in The Masulipatam Municipal Council represented by the Commissioner v. The Brundavan Talkies Ltd., Masulipatam A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 864 in construing the explanation to section 131 of the Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 1920). The explanation therein was similar to the explanation with which we are concerned. No importance at all was attached to the inclusive part of the explanation in the discussions in the judgment. The conclusion has been reached by following the Calcutta High Court decision and the decision of the House of Lords. The Allahabad High Court in Nirankar Nath v. Municipal Board Faizabad 1969 All. Law Journal 519 bad has taken a similar view in interpreting section 2 (25) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. This definition also does not contain an inclusive part as in the explanation to section 170 (5) of the Act. 18. We may refer to one more decision relied on by counsel of the Mysore High Court, in J. Vamana Prabhu v. The State of Mysore, (1967) 20 S.T.C. 38 wherein entry 29 of the Fifth Schedule to the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 came up for construction. The entry is in these terms:” 29, Firewood or charcoal when sold for domestic use.� The contractor who sold charcoal and firewood to the Government hospitals contended that the sales were exempt under section 8(1) of the above Act read with entry 29 of the Fifth Schedule to the above Act. This contention was accepted by the High Court for the charcoal and firewood were held to be sold for domestic use. 19. The section construed by the Calcutta and the Allahabad High Courts were not similar to the section and the explanation which we have to interpret. In the Mysore High Court case also the provision was different. Though the Madras High Court construed a similar section and explanation the distinction which we think arises from the section of the Act and that construed by the House of Lords had not been noticed. With great respect we are unable to agree with the view taken therein. In the Mysore High Court case also the provision was different. Though the Madras High Court construed a similar section and explanation the distinction which we think arises from the section of the Act and that construed by the House of Lords had not been noticed. With great respect we are unable to agree with the view taken therein. What we have endeavoured to show in this judgment is that when supply had to be given to the owner or occupier of a building without the statute itself making any distinction between a building such as a "house" or a "dwelling house" on the one hand, and a building or premises where any business or trade or manufacturing process is carried on the other, the provisions will have to be understood in a different manner from the way in which sections 8 and 25 of the 1907 Act have been construed by the House of Lords. We would like to repeat that the supply to the premises therein concerned was admittedly under section 8 and therefore for domestic purposes. The fact that the water was utilised for providing luncheon for a few people it was held will not make the supply as one for non-domestic, purposes because the nature of the use was domestic. The question is whether the same can be said when water is supplied to a hotel or a restaurant which is normally a place where a business or trade is carried on. We would therefore understand the supply of water for any trade or manufacture or business in clause (a) of the explanation to section 170 with reference to the place to which and the person to whom water is supplied. We have therefore to take water supplied to a hotel for the purpose of enabling the occupier to carry on his business as water supplied for non-domestic purposes. Nevertheless by virtue of clauses (i) and (iii) a large bulk of the water used shall be treated as for domestic purposes. This we think is the reasonable way of understanding the section, and the interpretation given to the House of Lords decision in Averys case in the decisions that we have referred to in Oddenino v. Metropolitan Water Board, (1914) 2 Ch. 734 (2) and in Barrett v. Ilkeston Corporation, 1917 1 K.B. 827 also supports this view. 20. This we think is the reasonable way of understanding the section, and the interpretation given to the House of Lords decision in Averys case in the decisions that we have referred to in Oddenino v. Metropolitan Water Board, (1914) 2 Ch. 734 (2) and in Barrett v. Ilkeston Corporation, 1917 1 K.B. 827 also supports this view. 20. Regarding hotels and restaurants what we have to direct is that the appellants, if they are utilising water supplied for any purposes other than those that would fall under any of the clauses (i) to (vi) of the explanation to section 170, will have to apply specifically to the corporation for the supply of water for non-domestic. purposes at the rates specified in Ext. P-1 resolution produced along with O.P. 4550 of 1972 (W.A. 482 of 1973) or come to an agreement with the corporation as to what percentage of the water supplied will be paid for at non-domestic rates. In case a separate connection is applied for supply will be made through a separate meter for non-domestic purposes at non-domestic rates. Regarding the water that has already been consumed by the appellants for the periods for which claims have been made by the corporation it is for the appellants and the corporation to come to terms by specifying what portion of the water used by them should be paid for at non-domestic rates and what portion will have to be paid for at domestic races. In the absence of a settlement the matter will have to be decided in other appropriate proceedings after evidence is taken regarding the quantum of water used for domestic purposes and that utilised for non-domestic purposes. 21. Regarding the cinema theatres the objection raised on behalf of the corporation was that the water has been utilised for canteens run by outsiders inside the premises and fountains. There is no evidence that any of the theatres has any such canteen. It is said that the fountains in the theatres have not been functioning and no water has been used for that purpose. If the fountains are not being utilised by the theatres the water to the theatres will have to be supplied at the domestic rate and no demand can be made at the rate specified in Ext. P-1. 22. It is said that the fountains in the theatres have not been functioning and no water has been used for that purpose. If the fountains are not being utilised by the theatres the water to the theatres will have to be supplied at the domestic rate and no demand can be made at the rate specified in Ext. P-1. 22. As regards the two cases pertaining to the Ice Factories are concerned, the user will not fall under any of the clauses (i) to (vi) mentioned in the explanation to section 170 and admittedly since the owners of the Ice Factories or occupiers thereof are engaged in the business of making ice, the supply of water will have to be at non-domestic rate. 23. We did not deal with the question considered by the learned Judge arising from a point mooted by the appellants that section 171 (2) of the Act is invalid as it has given unbridled control and authority to the standing committee to specify whatever rate they deem fit for the supply of water for non-domestic purposes. In view of the fact that Articles 14 and 19 are not available to the appellants, counsel prayed that the findings entered by the learned Judge in the judgment under appeals may be left open and the parties may be allowed to agitate the question, if necessary, in future proceedings. In the light of the above, we leave this point open. In the result we dismiss these appeals subject to what we have stated in paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 above. It is for the corporation and the appellants in the cases relating to hotels and restaurants as we indicated earlier, to come to terms regarding the portion of the water consumed which should be paid for at non-domestic rates. We expect that an earnest attempt will be made by the corporation and the appellants to come to such a settlement and that the corporation will not press for payment at the higher rate for any portion of the water already supplied before such a settlement is reached. We dispose all these appeals on the above terms and direct the parties to bear their respective costs throughout. Appendix 8. We dispose all these appeals on the above terms and direct the parties to bear their respective costs throughout. Appendix 8. Subject to the provisions of this act the board shall at the request of the owner or occupier of any house or building or part of a house or building occupied as a separate tenement in any street within the limits of supply in which any service main or service pipe of the board shall be laid or of any person who under the provisions of this act shall be entitled to require a supply of water for domestic purposes furnish to such owner or occupier or other person by means of a communication pipe or communication pipes and other necessary and proper apparatus to be provided and laid down and maintained by him and at his cost a sufficient supply of water for domestic purposes at a rate per annum which shall not exceed five per centum of the rateable value of the house or building or part of a house or building in respect of which the supply is required and such rate shall subject to the provisions of this act be charged uniformly under like circumstances to all consumers entitled to such supply.� 16. (1) The board shall at the request of any owner or occupier of any premises situate in or adjoining any street in which any main or service pipe of the board is or shall be laid who requires for use on such premises a supply of water by measure for purposes other than domestic and by means of communication pipes and other necessary and proper apparatus to be provided laid and maintained by and at the cost of the person requiring such supply afford a supply of water by means of a meter or other fit and sufficient instrument or apparatus supplied (at the cost of such person as aforesaid) or approved by the board for measuring and ascertaining the quantity of water so supplied.� (2) The board shall charge for any supply furnished by them under the last preceding sub-section of this section not exceeding the following rates for every one thousand gallons (that is to say): When the quarterly consumption of water does not exceed fifty thousand gallons elevenpence; When exceeding fifty thousand gallons and not exceeding one hundred thousand gallons tenpence; When exceeding one hundred thousand gallons and not exceeding two hundred thousand gallons ninepence and one halfpenny; When exceeding two hundred thousand gallons and not exceeding five hundred thousand gallons ninepence; When exceeding five hundred thousand gallons and not exceeding one million gallons eightpence and one halfpenny; When exceeding one million gallons and not exceeding three million gallons eightpence; When exceeding three million gallons and not exceeding five million gallons sevenpence; When exceeding five million gallons sixpence and one eighth of a penny: Provided that the board shall be entitled to charge for any such supply a sum of not less than twenty-two shillings and eleven pence in any quarter of a year and shall not be required to furnish any such supply for hydraulic power or in any greater quantity than five hundred thousand gallons in any day of twenty-four hours save to such consumers as may have during any day in the year ending the thirty-first day of March one thousand nine hundred and seven received a supply in excess of five hundred thousand gallons in which case the board shall if required continue to give to such consumer a daily supply not exceeding the quantity so received: Provided also that the whole of the water taken within any railway premises which form one area for railway purposes and are connected otherwise than by the running lines of the railway company shall be reckoned as one supply and chargeable accordingly notwithstanding that the water may in fact be delivered thereat through two or more meters pipes or other necessary and proper instruments: Provided further that the whole of the water furnished to any person within any premises which form one area for trading or manufacturing purposes shall be reckoned as one supply and chargeable accordingly notwithstanding that the water may in fact be delivered thereat through two or more meters pipes or other necessary and proper instruments: Provided also that the provisions of this section shall not prejudice any right which the London Hydraulic Power Company may have under this section to require a supply for the purposes of their trade or business. (3) The said rates shall be charged uniformly under like circumstances to all consumers entitled to and receiving a supply under this section arid the board shall not in the case of any supply exceeding twenty-five thousand gallons charge for any such supply a greater sum than they would be entitled to charge if the quantity of water supplied were just sufficient to bring such supply within the next division of the above-mentioned scale of rates relating to a supply of a greater quantity whereon a lower rate for every one thousand gallons is chargeable. (4) The board shall not be liable to any penalty or damages for not supplying water under this section if the failure to furnish such supply arises from frost unusual drought or other unavoidable cause or accident.� 20. The board shall not be bound to afford a supply of water otherwise than by measure to any house or building whereof any part is used for any trade or manufacturing purpose for which water is used or to any common lodging-house barracks workhouse or other public institution or building: Provided that where the board decline to afford otherwise than by measure any such supply as aforesaid they shall if required by the person who but for the provisions of this section would have been entitled to demand such supply furnish to the building in respect of which the supply is required a sufficient supply of water upon and subject to the terms and conditions contained in the section of this act relating to Supply by measure� and subject to the next following proviso (that is to say) : Provided that (except in the case of a supply by measure under this section to barracks or other buildings for the time being in the occupation of his majesty or of any department of his majestys government for public purposes) the board may require that the sum to be paid for any such supply by measure shall not be less than the sum which would have been chargeable in respect of such supply had the supply been given under the provisions of this act which relate to the supply for domestic purposes otherwise than by measure and the charges therefor. For the purposes of this section the expression public institution or building� shall not include any hospital or sanatorium wholly or partly supported by endowments or voluntary contributions and not carried on for purposes of private profit or gain. 25. In and for the purposes of this act the expression domestic. purposes� shall be deemed to include water closets and baths constructed or fitted so as not to be capable of containing when filled or filled up to the overflow or waste pipe (if any) more than eighty gallons but shall not include a supply of water for any of the following purposes (namely): Steam gas motor and other like engines; Railway purposes; , Ventilating purposes; Working any machine or apparatus; Consumption by or washing of horses or cattle: Washing carriages ,or other vehicles; Watering gardens by means of any outside tap or any hose tube pipe sprinkler or other like apparatus; Fountains or any ornamental purpose; Cleansing sewers and drains; Cleansing and watering streets or roads; Fire extinction; Flushing drains by means of any apparatus discharging automatically; Public pumps baths or washhouses; Any trade manufacture or business; , Any bath constructed or fitted so as to be capable of containing when filled or filled up to the overflow or waste pipe (if any) more than eighty gallons.�