Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner, owner of the House bearing No. 25, Feroz Saheb Street, Royapettah, Madras-14 has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the second respondent, whereunder the premises was classified as Domestic-non-Residential premises, under the Madras Metropolitan Regulations for Levy and Collection of Water Supply charges. Previously the premises was classified under 'Domestic' category, but as one room was being utilised by the husband of the petitioner (who is an eye specialist) for the purpose of consultation of patients, the respondents classified the same as 'Domestic-non-residential' premises. This is being challenged by the petitioner on the ground that though the room was being utilised by her husband for the purpose of consultation only, no water was, in fact, used in the said room nor there was any supply of water to the said room. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the definition of "Demostic-Non-Residential Premises' as indicated in the Regulations for Levy and Collection of Water Supply Charges, which is as follows : "Domestic Non-Residential Premises" means fully or partly used as theatres, hotels boarding Houses, lodges, residential clubs, hostels, (other that those attached to schools and colleges if recognised by Central or State Government or by competent authority), hospitals, run by charitable institutions, schools and colleges, fire stations, Kalyana Mandapams, Private nursing homes and clinics, swimming baths premises used for keeping animals for sale or hire and premises fully used for gardens." He also emphasised on the fact that even if a portion of the premises is used for some other purpose, that premises has to be classified as Domestic Non-residential premises. For the aforesaid purpose, he has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 19-8-1997 in W.A. No. 147 of 1993. In the said judgment, the question that was raised before the Division Bench was as to whether the premises could be classified as Commercial for the purpose of levy of water charges, even if no water was being supplied to the particular portion of the premises, which was used for commercial purpose. In the said judgment, the question that was raised before the Division Bench was as to whether the premises could be classified as Commercial for the purpose of levy of water charges, even if no water was being supplied to the particular portion of the premises, which was used for commercial purpose. Reversing the judgment of the learned single Judge, the Division Bench observed as follows : "........With respect, we are unable to share the Views of Ramalingam, J. in the judgment above cited or the judgment of the learned single Judge following the judgment of Ramalingam, J. This is because the question of actual water supply to the shops is immaterial. We have already quoted the definition of the word 'Commercial premises' and so long as the premises is partly used for commercial purpose, the Board is entitled to levy water charges on the basis that it is a commercial premises." (Emphasis supplied) 4. The ration laid down in the above-said decision is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Even though only one room in the premises was utilised for the purpose of consultation of the patients, keeping in view the definition as already extracted, there can be no doubt that the respondent was correct in classifying the premises as Domestic Non-residential Premises. Therefore, the main contention raised by the petitioner fails. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the husband of the petitioner has gone abroad and no longer utilising the same for the purpose of consultation of patients, from April, 1997. It further appears that a letter to that effect was written to the respondent on 3-6-1998, and the same has been produced before this Court. In fact, a reply was also given by the respondent stating that since the writ petition is pending, the question can be taken up only after the final disposal of W.P. No. 8642 of 1995. In the letter dated 24-2-1998 it has been indicated as if a letter was written earlier to the respondent. From the correspondence it prima facie appears that the husband of the petitioner was utilising the room for the purpose of consultation till May, 1997. In the letter dated 24-2-1998 it has been indicated as if a letter was written earlier to the respondent. From the correspondence it prima facie appears that the husband of the petitioner was utilising the room for the purpose of consultation till May, 1997. However, learned counsel for the respondent submits that an enquiry is necessary to find out if the said room had been let out to any other person or was being utilised for non-residential purposes. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions : (i) The petitioner is liable to pay water supply charges at non-residential rate till the end of April, 1997; (ii) an enquiry would be conducted by the respondent by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to find out regarding the use of the room after May, 1997. If it is found that the portion of the premises was used for any non-residential purpose, the petitioner would be asked to the water charges at the commercial rate and it should be classified as Domestic Non residential premises with effect from such date. Such enquiry should be completed within three months from the date of communication of the said order. It is needless to say, if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the action of the respondent, it would be open to her to seek redressal before the appropriate forum. 7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs. Connected W.M.P. is closed. Order accordingly.