Judgment Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. FINDING himself unable to agree with the views expressed by this Court in Nlrankar Nath v. Municipal Board, Faizabad, 1969 AWR (J) 6 = 1969 ALJ 519 a learned single Judge has referred the following question of law for decision by a larger Bench:- "Whether use of water by a hotel for its clients will be a commercial purpose or a domestic one as contemplated by section 2 (25) of the U. P. Municipalities Act." 2. IN the present case, the plaintiff-respondent ran a hotel and restaurant, called Elite Hotel, in the city of Gorakhpur. The Municipal Board of Gorakhpur supplied water to this hotel. It demanded payment for the water used by the hotel on non-domestic rates. It sent bills to the plaintiff-respondent on that basis. The plaintiff-respondent demurred. It took up the plea that the water supplied to the hotel was used by the persons residing in it for domestic purposes, like bathing, washing, using toilets, perparation of food for those residing in the hotel etc. It was a domestic purpose, as defined in the Municipalities Act. The Municipal Board was hence entitled to charge only at the rates prescribed for domestic supply of water. The Municipal Board did not accept this case. It sent a notice of disconnection to the plaintiff. Thereupon the plaintiff instituted the suit giving rise to the present appeal for an injunction restraining the defendant from disconnecting the water connection of the plaintiff's hotel. 3. THE trial court held that domestic use means use in a person's regular place of abode. THE plaintiff himself did not reside in the hotel. It was not his house, but a place for running a trade of hotel. THE ruling of this Court in Nirankar Nath's case was distinguished on the ground that in that case the petitioner himself also resided in the hotel. On lacts it was found that the owner of the hotel did not live in the premises. Customers alone lived and paid on monthly basis. They were like tenants or licencees. Tea and food etc. were prepared and sold to customers. THE water was hence used for purposes of trade, and was as such liable to be charged at non-doemstic rates. On these findings the suit was dismissed. 4. THE plaintiff went up in appeal. THE lower appellate court held that Nirankar Nath's case was applicable. Tea and food etc. were prepared and sold to customers. THE water was hence used for purposes of trade, and was as such liable to be charged at non-doemstic rates. On these findings the suit was dismissed. 4. THE plaintiff went up in appeal. THE lower appellate court held that Nirankar Nath's case was applicable. THE distinction drawn by the learned Munsif that the owner of the hotel was not himself living in it was not a valid point of distinction. THE use of the water is the distinguishing feature. THE plaintiff gives normal facilities to those coming to stay in the hotel, like water and electricity. THE use of water in the plaintiff's hotel was doemstic. THE defendant Board was entitled to charge at doemstic rates. On these findings the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. Aggrieved, the Municipal Board came up to this Court in Second Appeal. 5. SECTION 229 of the U. P. Municipalities Act provides that every Board may by agreement supply any owner or occupier of land with any water that he may require for any purpose for such remuneration, consistent with any rate or rates prescribed by rule, and on such terms and conditions, consistent with this Act and with any rule, as are agreed on between the Board and such owner or occupier. SECTION 230 authorises the Board to charge for the water supplied in accordance with the rates prescribed by rules. SECTION 232 uses the phrase "water for domestic purposes." It provides that the Board may at any time cease to supply water for other than doemstic purposes on certain conditions mentioned in that provision. 6. SECTION 2 (25) defines the phrase "water for domestic purposes" as follows: "(25) 'water for domestic purposes' shall not include water for cattle, or for horses, 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 trade, manufacture, or business, or for building purpose or for watering gardens not appurtenant to any dwelling house or for fountain or for any ornamental purpose." Section 2 (25) of the U. P. Municipalities Act is an identical reproduction of the Water Works Clauses Acts, 1847 and 1863. In those English Acts the italicised portions of the present section were not there. The rest is exactly the same. In those English Acts the italicised portions of the present section were not there. The rest is exactly the same. 7. IT will be seen that the definition is in negative terms. IT lays down various kinds of uses for water which are not for domestic purposes. IT does not define or elaborate what are domestic purposes. 8. IN Nirankar Nath's case the question was whether water used in a residential hotel by the customers was use for domestic or non-domestic purposes. A learned single Judge held that one of the purposes excluded from being a domestic purpose was use of water for any trade, manufacture or business. He held that water for trade or business 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 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 domestic use. The learned single Judge hearing the present case found himself unable to agree with the meaning attributed to the words "commercial purpose''. He expressed the opinion that running a hotel or a restaurant was certainly not a domestic purpose, and if the water is required for use by the customers, it can be no other purpose but commercial purpose. The charge for water supplied to the clients is included in the over-all charges made by the hotel. Similarly where water is used for preparation of tea, coffee and other food materials for sale, that again cannot be said to be domestic purpose. 9. IT strikes us that the definition of "water for domestic purposes" is clumsy and inartistic. Instead of delineating in positive terms what are domestic purpose, it seeks to limit "domestic purposes" by expressly excluding certain purposes. IT excludes water for cattle, horses or washing carriages but only where the cattle, horses or carriages are kept for sale or for use for commercial purposes. Instead of delineating in positive terms what are domestic purpose, it seeks to limit "domestic purposes" by expressly excluding certain purposes. IT excludes water for cattle, horses or washing carriages but only where the cattle, horses or carriages are kept for sale or for use for commercial purposes. Exhypothesi water that may be used for cattle, or for horses, or for washing carriages which are kept by a person for his own use will be use of water for domestic purposes. The test does not appear to be that the water is used and consumed by the occupier for the private purposes of himself or his household. 10. IT appears to us that use of water for comfortable living in a house is a domestic use. IT is an amenity or facility usually provided in a house. Interpreting a similar provision in Water Works Clauses Act, 1867, it has been held that water for (a) the supply of cisterns for flushing water closets ; (b) as a continuous and constantly running supply for urinals in a large building, e. g. a pauper school, (c) to supply fire hydrants used mostly for washing the yards of such a building; (d) to supply boilers for warming the building with hot water and for heating water for ordinary laundry purposes, were "domestic purposes" : (South-West Suburban Water Co. v. St. Marylebone, (1904) 2 K. B. 174) IT was further held that the words "domestic purposes" include user, not merely for washing, drinking, flushing closets, and the like, but extend to user for what is called the "amenities of the house", but that the limits of such amenities must be ascertained with due regard to what is reasonable, and what is the ordinary user in our day. In Metropolitan Water Board v. Avery, (1914) A.G. 118 the House of Lords observed that if the use of water is domestic in its nature it is not prevented from being a supply for domestic purposes by reason of the fact that it is used in connection with e.g., a canteen business. 11. IN Metropolitan Water Board v. Colley, (1912) A.C. 24 the House of Lords affirmed the view that the inhabitants of a workhouse, although maintained for a public purpose, can demand water for domestic purposes, i.e. for use within the workhouse for purposes which are domestic, as distinguished from purposes of trade. 12. 11. IN Metropolitan Water Board v. Colley, (1912) A.C. 24 the House of Lords affirmed the view that the inhabitants of a workhouse, although maintained for a public purpose, can demand water for domestic purposes, i.e. for use within the workhouse for purposes which are domestic, as distinguished from purposes of trade. 12. IT appears to us that the true test is what is the character of the purpose, not what is the character of the place of user, or the character of the person who uses water. If the purpose of using water is what is generally known as domestic, it will not cease to be so merely because the place where it is used is a hotel or a public house, or a cinema house or a dwelling house. Water may be used for a boiler or a geyser to produce hot water for bathing purposes. It will be a domestic use. But if water were used by an occupier as a motive power to drive a dynamo for the purpose of producing electricity to light his house, it is highly debatable whether it will be a domestic use, though in both cases the user may be in a dwelling house. 13. HERE the water was used by the plaintiff's hotel as a normal amenity necessary for comfortable living of the clients who came to stay in the hotel and who ate food or drank tea or coffee there. User for these purposes was clearly user for domestic purposes and was not user for a commercial purpose. 14. WE, therefore, answer the question referred to us by holding that use of water by a hotel for its clients was a domestic purpose within meaning of Section 2 (25) of the U. P. Municipalities Act. Let the papers be laid before the learned single Judge with this answer and opinion. Question answered.