TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against a communication dated 9-2-1989 sent by the executive engineer sanitary division of the respondent-board calling upon the petitioner to apply for a sanitary connection through a licenced plumber and threatening to disconnect the connection already taken if he failed to do so. ( 2 ) A building constructed on plots No. 180 to 183 o. t. c. road, chickpet, bangalore comprising a ground floor with shops and first floor had 30 bath rooms in it. The petitioner appears to have purchased the said structure and after demolishing the same constructed in its place a seven storied building inclusive of a cellar. The building now standing in place of the old has 12 bath rooms in place of 30 that existed in the earlier structure. Having failed to secure the permission required under the provisions of bangalore water sewerage and sanitary board, act, 1964, the board appears to have called upon the petitioner to apply for a sanitary connection regularisation of the connection already taken by him unauthorisedly. Aggrieved the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. ( 3 ) MR. Srinivasalu, learned counsel for petitioner argued that there was no legal obligation cast upon the petitioner to secure any permission from the board for the sanitary connections in question. This according to the learned counsel was so in view of the fact that the earlier building which he had purchased and demolished had 30 bath rooms functioning in it. He urged that the existence of these bath rooms in the earlier building entitled the petitioner to continue the use of sewerage system provided by the board without obtaining any permission. Permission in terms of Section 75 is required only in case a new connection was required. He urged that even though the building raised by the petitioner was new the sewerage connection could not be treated to be so, looking to the fact that the old building which now stood demolished also had a similar connection. According to Mr. Srinivasulu, the owner could even after reconstruction of the premises continue making use of the board sewer without obtaining any fresh permission for the same. ( 4 ) SECTION 63 of the ACT aforesaid vests the public sewers within the bangalore metropolitan area in the 2nd respondent-board. According to Mr. Srinivasulu, the owner could even after reconstruction of the premises continue making use of the board sewer without obtaining any fresh permission for the same. ( 4 ) SECTION 63 of the ACT aforesaid vests the public sewers within the bangalore metropolitan area in the 2nd respondent-board. All such sewers are supposed to be maintained by the board. As per Section 68 it is not lawful for any person to erect or re-erect any premises or to occupy the same unless a drain is constructed of such size, materials and descriptions, at such level and with such fall as shall appear to the board to be necessary for the effectual drainage of such premises and the premises is occupied with such appliances and fittings as may appear to the board to be necessary for the purposes of gathering or receiving the filth and other polluted and obnoxious materials from the same. Sub-section (2) of Section 68 directs that any such drain shall empty into a board sewer. Section 75 of the ACT forbids the making or causing of any connection or communication with any sewer referred to in Section 63 constructed or maintained by, or vested in the board without the written permission of the board. A plain reading of these provisions leaves no manner of doubt that no premises can be erected or re-erected unless the same is provided with a drain for effectual flushing of the premises and every fixture connected thereof. The drain must empty into a board sewer. Any such connection between the drain and the sewer referred to in Section 75 cannot be made except with the written permission from the board. The fact that an old building is demolished and reconstructed does not therefore by itself render provisions of Section 68 or 75 inapplicable to any such reconstructed building. In the circumstances the communication sent to the petitioner asking him to seek permission / regularisation of the connection already made by him cannot be found fault with. ( 5 ) THE arguments advanced by Mr. Srinivasulu that the connection that existed between the sewer and the old building has not been broken or can be made use of for the benefit of the newly erected building also does not commend itself to me. The connection referred to under Section 75 is a connection between premises and the sewer. Srinivasulu that the connection that existed between the sewer and the old building has not been broken or can be made use of for the benefit of the newly erected building also does not commend itself to me. The connection referred to under Section 75 is a connection between premises and the sewer. Such a connection breaks the moment the premises is demolished. It is not possible to conceive of situation, where the sewer can be said to be connected to a building eventhough the building has become extinct. Nor is it possible to hold that a newly erected building gets automatically connected to the board sewer merely because the building earlier standing in its place was so connected. In the light of the specific provisions of the scheme of the act, the owner of a newly constructed building cannot depend upon the connection enjoyed by an earlier structure or claim that any such connection continued to subsist for the benefit of the new building. In other words once the building is demolished and a new building erected in its place the owner is bound to seek a connection for the new building. Seen thus the board committed no error or impropriety in issuing the communication under challenge. ( 6 ) IN the result, this writ petition has no merit and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .