Judgment :- The second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17-2-1981 in A.S. No. 174 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsiff, Cuddalore dated 24-7-1980 in O.S. 257 of 1978. The suit is for injunction restraining the respondents from recovering the sum of Rs. 1078.35 claimed by the respondents towards electricity consumption charges payable under tariff IV(a). 2. The plaintiff has claimed that he has obtained electricity connection in S.C. No. 150 for agricultural purposes at Sundaravadi village. He is having his residence also in the land abutting the road. There is also a bore well in the land. From the bore well he takes water by using the electric motor to the over head tank and from the over head tank he is using the water for the domestic purpose in the house. The defendants noticed this using of water for domestic purposes instead of agricultural purposes two and half a year's back. Hence they have issued a demand for payment of electricity consumption charges at the tariff rate under IV(a) instead of VI. He gave a letter Ex. B1 disputing the claim of the respondents. As they persisted the claims, the plaintiff has filed the suit. The main contention of the respondents is that the trial Court and as well as the appellate Court found that the house is an independent one situated in the street and that it is not a farm house as contended by the plaintiff and hence he was not entitled to the relief claimed by him. 3. Ex. B-2 has been prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Cuddalore Town after inspection of the place, in which the house is shown abutting the street. The bore well is in the land. The service connection is also in the land. The over head tank is also adjacent to the building and near the borewell. The plaintiff has stated that he has taken service connection for his land. He has also stated that the service connection is for agricultural purpose. He has also admitted that he is using the water for his domestic purpose also. He has also denied the suggestion that his house is in that street. Further, he has also stated that the materials required for the agriculture are stored in the house. He has also stated that the service connection is for agricultural purpose. He has also admitted that he is using the water for his domestic purpose also. He has also denied the suggestion that his house is in that street. Further, he has also stated that the materials required for the agriculture are stored in the house. From the evidence and from the sketch Ex. B-2, it is clear that the house is situated in the land abutting the road on the northern side. It is admitted by the defendant that if it is a farm house, then even if the water is used for domestic purpose in the house, the appellant is entitled for the consumption under tariff No. VI. Therefore, we have to see whether the house located inside the land is to be construed as a farm house. It is not the case of the defendants that he is not cultivating the land and using the building for some other business purposes. On the other hand, the plaintiff has stated in Ex. B-1 that he has raised sugarcane crops. From that we are able to find that the plaintiff is residing in the house and is cultivating his land. He is also storing the materials required for agriculture. If that is so, it will be construed to be a farm house. In the Law Lexicon II Edition 1997 (Extensively Revised and Enlarged) by Mr. P. Ramanatha Iyer at Page 713 the farm house is defined as follows :- "Farm house - Dwelling place on a farm" In Webster's III New International Dictionary (Vol. II) page 824, the meaning of farm house is given as follows :- "1. the dwelling on a farm as distinguished from utility buildings (as a barn corncrib, etc.) 2. the dwelling and adjacent buildings (as a barn) on a farm." From the above mentioned definitions and from the facts found in this case, I am of the view that the house in question can be construed to be a farm house. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents, states that the plaintiff has obtained a separate connection for the residential house. Further, in the agreement the appellant has agreed that the water would be used only for agricultural purposes. Since there is a contravention the respondents are entitled to reverse the tariff. 5. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents, states that the plaintiff has obtained a separate connection for the residential house. Further, in the agreement the appellant has agreed that the water would be used only for agricultural purposes. Since there is a contravention the respondents are entitled to reverse the tariff. 5. Now, coming to the first objection namely, that he has obtained separate connection for the residence, simply because a separate connection has been obtained for the dwelling house it will not mean that he is not entitled to the concession given to a farm house. The 2nd objection is that in the agreement he has agreed to use the electricity only for agricultural purpose. Since he is using it for domestic purpose the change of tariff is valid. In the evidence DW 1 has admitted that if it is a farm house then he is entitled for concessional tariff. We have already found that the house in question is a farm house. Therefore, this objection also does not hold good. The other contention is that since admittedly the plaintiff is residing in the house with his family members it cannot be construed to be a farm house. We have seen the definition above. The farm house includes a dwelling house also apart from other buildings like barn etc. Therefore, this contention is also untenable. 6. For the foregoing reasons, I find that the courts below, have not properly construed the meaning of farm house and therefore, they have misled themselves. In these circumstances, as I have found that the dwelling house can be construed to be farm house the change of tariff is unwarranted and the appellant is entitled to the benefit that will accrue to a farm house. In the circumstances, the judgment and decree of the courts below are reversed. The plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for. It is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that he had already deposited the bill amount in the court. He is entitled to withdraw the same. Further it is made clear that he is bound to pay the electricity consumption charges as per the tariff VI. No costs. Ordered accordingly.