Judgement ORDER :- Present writ petition has been filed for the grant of following reliefs :- "(i) That the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 may be directed to produce the entire record which led to the sanctioning of independent water connection in favour of respondent No. 4. (ii) That the action of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in granting the independent water connection to respondent No. 4 may be held to be illegal and void and against the provisions of the H. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and consequently, the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 may be directed to disconnect such water connection forthwith. (iii) that the respondents may be burdened with the costs of this petition." 2. Admitted facts of this case are that the petitioner is the landlord of a building, known as Chanaur Bhawan, Chhotta Shimla. This is a three storeyed building. Part of it is occupied by the petitioner and his son and rest is occupied by the tenants. Respondent No. 4 is a tenant in the first floor for the last 7-8 years. 3. Electricity and water supply is available in the premises in question. Respondent No. 4 claimed that till 1998 he felt no difficulty so far availability of water to his premises was concerned. During this year when some problem was felt by him regarding the water supply and it became scarce, he applied to respondent No. 1 for grant of a separate water supply connection to the tenanted premises in his occupation. Record relating to the said connection was referred to by learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and has also been examined by this Court. 4. After receipt of application different queries were raised by respondent No.1. Water supply connection was allowed by the Municipal Corporation on 17-10-2001. Meter was sanctioned on 23-1-2002 and finally this water connection was made functional on 28-1-2002. Further stand of the petitioner is that after having returned to Shimla on the evening on 31-1-2002, he objected to the Commissioner of respondent No.1 against grant of independent connection in favour of respondent No. 4 based on a false affidavit that too without no objection from the landlord (petitioner). A copy of objections submitted to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, is filed as Annexure P-1 to the petition and was delivered on 5-2-2002. A copy of objections submitted to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, is filed as Annexure P-1 to the petition and was delivered on 5-2-2002. With a view to advance his case, reliance was placed by the learned Senior counsel on S. 2(37) and S. 170 of the H. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the act). For a ready reference, both these provisions are extracted hereinbelow :- "(37) "Owner" includes a person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of any land or building whether on his own account or on account of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person who should so receive the rent or be entitled to receive it if the land or building or part thereof were let to a tenant." "170. (1) The Commissioner may, on application by the owner of any building arrange for supplying water from the nearest main to such building for domestic purposes in such quantities as he deems reasonable, and may at any time limit the amount of water to be supplied whenever he considers necessary. (2) Apart from the charges for the domestic supply at rates as may be fixed by the Government, additional charges will be payable for the following supplies of water :- (a) for animals or for washing vehicles where such animals or vehicles are kept for sale or hire; (b) for any trade, manufacture or business; (c) for fountains, swimming baths, or for any ornamental or mechanical purposes; (d) for gardens or for purposes of irrigation; (e) for watering roads and paths; (f) for building purposes. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly respondent No.4 is not the owner of the premises in question, which position was not even disputed by respondent No.4 also. Therefore, when both S. 2(37) and 170 of the Act are read together, respondent No.1 could not have sanctioned the independent separate connection to respondent No.4. This action of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 is thus ultra vires of the provisions of the Act, and is liable to be declared as such. Respondents when put to notice have filed their replies. One set of reply is filed by respondents 1 to 3 and the other by respondent No. 4. 6. This action of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 is thus ultra vires of the provisions of the Act, and is liable to be declared as such. Respondents when put to notice have filed their replies. One set of reply is filed by respondents 1 to 3 and the other by respondent No. 4. 6. So far the stand of respondents Nos.1 to 3 is concerned, they have categorically stated that there is no other provision in the Act for the grant of water connection except S. 170. No bye-laws under S. 62 of the Act have been formulated by respondent No. 1. Mrs. Radha Saha submitted that S. 170, supra, gives discretion to the Commissioner of respondent No.1 on the application of the owner of any building for supplying water. As per S. 170(1), such sanction is to be for domestic purposes in such quantities as per the provisions of this Section. It was also admitted by them that it is the petitioner, who is the owner of the premises in question and respondent No.4 is only a tenant. Further stand of these respondents is that independent water connection was sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, on the basis of affidavit (Annexure R-2), filed by respondent No.4 as well as on the basis of Resolution No. 4 (5) passed on 30-12-1992 in its 8th meeting by the Municipal Corporation. A copy of this resolution was also annexed as Annexure R-1. Copy of the affidavit submitted by respondent No. 4 along with his application is also extracted hereinbelow :- "AFFIDAVIT I, Sunil Bagga S/o late Sh. Karam Chand, R/o 1st Floor, Chanaur Bhawan, Chhota Shimla, Shimla-2, solemnly affirm and declare 1. That I applied for new water connection for domestic use. 2. That I will not make Municipal Corporation, Shimla, as party in case of any dispute with house owner. Sd/- Deponent Certified that the contents from para 1 to 2 are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein. Sd/- Deponent Signed this day of 18 August, 1998 at Shimla." 7. On the other hand, respondent No.4 admits that petitioner is the landlord and he is occupying the tenanted premises from 1993. Initial rental was Rs. 350/- per month and he felt no problem till 1998 so far water supply to his premises was concerned. During 1998 the water supply became erratic. On the other hand, respondent No.4 admits that petitioner is the landlord and he is occupying the tenanted premises from 1993. Initial rental was Rs. 350/- per month and he felt no problem till 1998 so far water supply to his premises was concerned. During 1998 the water supply became erratic. Reason given by him is that the petitioner had put up a stop cork in his premises and with it the supply to the tenanted premises was being obstructed. With a view to have peaceful living, he even increased the rent from Rs.350/- P.M. to Rs.1500/- P. M. though this demand was illegal. Despite this increase after a few months in the year 1998, petitioner started demanding further enhancement and on his refusal, the supply was being disturbed on one pretext or the other. 8. He further claims that in these circumstances on "verbal consent" from the petitioner, independent water connection was applied for by respondent No.4. To the plea of the petitioner that the independent water supply connection having been sanctioned in favour of respondent No.4 being the handywork of the brother of said respondent, who is an employee of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, i.e. respondent No.1; it is stated that though he is working in the Corporation, but he had nothing to do so far sanction is concerned. Per him, if that was the situation probably it would not have taken 3 years to get the requisite connection. His further case is that separate water connection was installed at the cost of more than Rs.6000/-. The allegations of the petitioner that damage was caused to the wall of the premises was also denied. Rather respondent No.4 alleged that son of the petitioner uprooted the water pipe line on 1-2-2002. As such FIR No. 31/2002 was lodged against the said son at Police Station Chhota Shimla under S. 430/506, IPC. Allegations of the affidavit extracted hereinabove, being false were also denied by respondent No. 4. He also pleaded that action has also been initiated against the petitioner under S. 11 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 and the matter is pending before the Rent Controller, Shimla. Interim order has been passed on 8-3-2002. Despite this water supply has not been restored. As such, action for disobeying the said order is pending. Thus, according to respondent No.4, injustice is being done to him by the petitioner. Interim order has been passed on 8-3-2002. Despite this water supply has not been restored. As such, action for disobeying the said order is pending. Thus, according to respondent No.4, injustice is being done to him by the petitioner. His further plea is that if the prayers made by the petitioner are allowed, it will be putting premium on his acts of taking law in his own hands besides disobeying the interim order passed in the proceedings under S. 11 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. This entire exercise is aimed causing harassment as well as ensuring non-availability of water to the tenanted premises of respondent No. 4. The entire endeavour on the part of the petitioner is to get the premises vacated by unjust/illegal means. 9. After having considered the matter on the basis of the provisions of the Act, as well as for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, we are clear that the Corporation could not have sanctioned the grant of water supply connection unless the petitioner either consented to it or it was permitted by law. 10. As already noted, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner ever consented to grant of such supply nor the Corporation could have acted on the basis of alleged inconvenience. The plea of "verbal consent" of the landlord is prima facie belated as also an after thought. Reason being that in the application submitted by the petitioner to the Municipal Corporation, short supply/deficiency in the water supply is not shown as the ground. Respondent No.4 has shown himself the owner. While submitting the application for proposed new water connection in his name at Chanaur Bhawan, Chhota Shimla, he has signed the map as owner. His affidavit makes no sense and as alreadey noted water supply connection could only be given to the owner, who has been defined under the Act. So far matter relating to pendency of proceedings under S. 11 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 is concerned, we have not gone into this question and have thus expressed no opinion on it. Reason being that the matter is pending before the competent Tribunal, who is seized of it. Anything said on the respective pleas of the parties is likely to prejudice either of them in such proceedings. Reason being that the matter is pending before the competent Tribunal, who is seized of it. Anything said on the respective pleas of the parties is likely to prejudice either of them in such proceedings. As such, this question is left open to be determined by the Rent Controller before whom admittedly the proceedings are pending. 11. From a bare reading of S. 170, supra, coupled with S. 2(37), we are satisfied that on the application of respondent No.4, that too without either no objection or in the absence of the consent of the petitioner, Municipal Corporation could not have allowed the prayer of respondent No.4 and then instal and make the water supply available to him. 12. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that water supply is an essential service, and the petitioner-landlord cannot be allowed to obstruct, withhold and/or disconnect the same. As already noted, we are not saying anything on this behalf. She further submitted that liberal view of the definition of owner be taken, so as to include a person claiming a right like her client, i.e. respondent No.4 under his landlord petitioner. According to her, if such an interpretation is allowed, it will be construing the provisions of the Act harmoniously. 13. We see no force in this submission. Reason being that the word owner speaks of persons other than a tenant. Whatever was intended to be included by the Legislature in this definition has been specified in it. As such, in our opinion, on a reading of the definition of the word owner, we are satisfied that it was never intended to include a tenant like respondent No.4 within this definition, so as to enable him to invoke S. 170 supra of the Act. We may notice here that nothing has been brought to the contrary to our notice on behalf of respondents, particularly, respondent No.4 so as to sustain the action of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for grant of independent water supply connection in the tenanted premises occupied by respondent No.4 under the petitioner in Chanaur Bhawan, Chhota Shimla. 14. It is by now well known rule of interpretation that when language is simple and meaning is clear, external aids are not to be pressed into service so as to interpret meaning of a particular provision of law and as was urged on behalf of respondent No.4. 14. It is by now well known rule of interpretation that when language is simple and meaning is clear, external aids are not to be pressed into service so as to interpret meaning of a particular provision of law and as was urged on behalf of respondent No.4. Similarly, there is no question of reading down the definition of owner in a manner so as to include a tenant in it. The Legislature is presumed to be well aware when tenant was not included or independent right having not been given to him to apply and get an independent water supply connection. The omission is presumed in the knowledge of the Legislature when provisions of the Act were enacted. 15. So far stand of respondents Nos.1 to 3 that connection in question was sanctioned on the basis of Resolution of respondent No.1 passed in the year 1992, supra, is concerned, it also does not give any authority to it to bye pass the provisions of the Act. Reason being that respondent No.1 has to work within the four corners of H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and not beyond that. Resolution etc. have to be in consonance with the provisions of the Act and not other way round. 16. No other point is urged. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is ordered accordingly. As a consequence thereof, the action of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in sanctioning the independent water supply connection in favour of respondent No.4 in his tenanted premises at "Chanaur Bhawan", Chhota Shimla and thereafter sanctioning meter and finally making such connection functional by these respondents, being ultra vires of the provisions of the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, is hereby quashed and set side. Resultantly, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to restore the position as it existed prior to such sanction etc. While allowing this writ petition, it is clarified that anything said in this judgment is meant only for disposal of the present writ petition. As such, the authorities under the Rent Act or under any other law which governs the case of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 will be free to deal with it as and when matter is brought before them by any one of these two contesting parties. As such, the authorities under the Rent Act or under any other law which governs the case of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 will be free to deal with it as and when matter is brought before them by any one of these two contesting parties. Further such authorities will decide the same independently on the basis of materials those may be produced by the parties in such proceeding (s) and without being in any manner influenced by any of the observations made in this judgment. 18. This writ petition was finally heard on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties on 24-12-2002, after it was admitted on that date. Record produced by respondents Nos.1 to 3 has been returned. Petition allowed.