Judgment The Court: - Four persons have joined together in this writ petition dated September 20th, 2006 seeking a mandamus commanding the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to take necessary steps for supplying water to them and also to grant permission to operate the deep tube well sunk in the premises concerned. Their case is this. They have been residing in the premises at 10, Bakery Road, Kolkata-700 022 as tenants. It is a property of the eighth respondent, M.B. Commercial Trust. There are eleven flats in the existing buildings and all are occupied by tenants. In May 1999 the tenants faced an acute shortage of water, and consequently, on the basis of their request, the trustees for the eighth respondent applied to the corporation for permission to sink a deep tube well in the premises. They were informed by the trustees that the corporation granted the requisite permission to sink a deep tube well. At the material point of time there were two sources of water supply to the premises, viz. the corporation pipeline, and the deep tube well. The pump installed for causing the underground reservoir corporation water to reach the overhead tank is under the control of the trustees. On February 16th, 2006 water supply to their flats was completely stopped. The trustees padlocked the doors of the room where the pump is installed. Their request to resume water supply failed to move the trustees. Under the circumstances, they informed the matter to the corporation by their letter dated March 8th, 2006. The respondents colluded and conspired together to stop water supply to them, and thus they infringed their fundamental right guaranteed by art. 21 of the Constitution of India. On May 3rd, 2006 they moved the competent civil court by instituting a suit seeking a decree for restoration of water supply. An application under Or.39, rr.1 and 2 read with s.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was moved seeking a mandatory interim order directing restoration of water supply. The court did not grant any ex parte interim order. The trustees filed an application under Or.7, R.11, which was rejected by an order dated September 11th, 2006. Feeling aggrieved, they moved this court by filing a revision application under art. 227, and obtained an order staying all further proceedings before the civil court. As a result, they are unable to proceed with the suit as well. The trustees filed an application under Or.7, R.11, which was rejected by an order dated September 11th, 2006. Feeling aggrieved, they moved this court by filing a revision application under art. 227, and obtained an order staying all further proceedings before the civil court. As a result, they are unable to proceed with the suit as well. They called upon the third respondent, the authority concerned of the corporation, to take immediate steps for proper water supply to the premises. The authorities of the corporation failed and neglected to take necessary steps. Against such action and inaction of the corporation they took out the writ petition. On December 19th, 2006 an order was made appointing a special officer. The caretaker of the eighth respondent was directed to hand over the keys of the lock put on the doors of the room concerned to the special officer for inspection thereof. On December 20th, 2006 the report of the special officer was considered. An order was made directing the special officer to break open the padlock put on the doors of the room, to install a pump, if there was no pump, and to appoint a caretaker. By order dated December 21st, 2006 while giving further directions to the special officer, maintainability of the writ petition was kept open. Then order dated December 22nd, 2006 was made directing the special officer to install the pump. Under the circumstances, the trustees for the eighth respondent took out an application (GA No. 124 of 2007) dated January 17th, 2007 for an order dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable. They contended that with a pure private dispute between landlords and tenants the writ petition had been taken out, when remedy of the petitioners, as tenants, if any, was available only under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The petitioners have filed opposition to the application. But the respondents in the writ petition have not filed any opposition to the writ petition. When the application was taken up for hearing, counsel for the parties invited me to take up the writ petition itself for final hearing and disposal. Hence I took up the writ petition for final hearing. Mr Panja, counsel for the petitioners, has argued as follows. When the application was taken up for hearing, counsel for the parties invited me to take up the writ petition itself for final hearing and disposal. Hence I took up the writ petition for final hearing. Mr Panja, counsel for the petitioners, has argued as follows. Since the respondents have not filed any opposition, statements made by the petitioners in the writ petition have to be deemed to be correct, and the allegations are to be deemed to be admitted by the respondents. As was held in Chameli Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 1051 , right to live guaranteed in any civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter; and hence by not taking steps for supply of water the corporation has infringed the petitioners’ fundamental right guaranteed by art. 21. That right to get water is one of the basic human rights had been recognized even before the constitution said so in its art.21, and that will appear from what was said in the dance drama "Chandalika” written by Tagore as back as 1938. In Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 107 it was said by the apex court that where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any fundamental right, in spite of availability of alternative remedy, the high court may exercise its writ powers. Hence it cannot be said that in view of the provisions in s.27 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the petitioners are not entitled to approach the writ court seeking the reliefs for which the writ petition was filed. Besides, the jurisdiction of the controller under provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is only over a landlord and tenant dispute. Hence, when the petitioners are alleging failure on the part of the corporation to discharge its statutory duties and obligations, it cannot be said that the petitioners’ remedy, if any, was before the controller. Besides, the jurisdiction of the controller under provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is only over a landlord and tenant dispute. Hence, when the petitioners are alleging failure on the part of the corporation to discharge its statutory duties and obligations, it cannot be said that the petitioners’ remedy, if any, was before the controller. In view of the provisions in Ss.234(1)(c), 234(2), 234(3) and 234C of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the corporation was under a statutory obligation to ensure supply of water to the respective flats of the petitioners, but it failed to discharge that obligation, even after it was requested to do that; and hence the writ petition seeking mandamus for the purpose is maintainable. The provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 sufficiently empower the corporation to deal with trouble making landlords such as the trustees for the eighth respondent. In any case, since by several interim orders water supply to the petitioners was regularized, and when no appeal from them was filed, today no final order can be made in the case so as to make the interim orders ineffective. Mr Bandopadhaya, counsel for the trustees for the eighth respondent, has contended as follows. In view of the provisions in S.27 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 the writ petition is just not maintainable. Remedy available under s.27 is not an alternative remedy, but the only remedy, if any, that was available to the petitioners, claiming to be tenants in the trust property. Their case is that supply of water to them was not stopped by the corporation, but by their landlords, and hence it cannot be said that the corporation has failed to discharge its statutory duties cast on it by the provisions in Ss.234 and 234C of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Since water has been duly supplied by the corporation through its pipes connected to the premises, in view of the provisions in S.241A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, it is to be presumed that the corporation fully discharged its statutory duties and obligations; and hence there is absolutely no basis to say that by its inaction the corporation infringed the petitioners’ fundamental right guaranteed by art.21 of the constitution. It is not the case of the petitioners that the corporation was supplying water to them directly and for that they were paying requisite fee to the corporation. The dispute is a pure private one bereft of any connection whatsoever with any statutory duty or obligation of the corporation. Having failed to obtain any interim relief in the suit that was subsequently dismissed as not maintainable in view of the provisions in s.27 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the petitioners took out this writ petition, and thus abused the process of court. Not only the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, but everything that has taken place because of the interim orders has to be remedied suitably so that the trust property may not suffer in any manner for them. Mr Ghosh, counsel for the proforma respondents, has simply adopted Mr Panja’s arguments. Mr Chakraborty, counsel for the corporation, has said that the petitioners were absolutely wrong in saying that the corporation infringed their fundamental right guaranteed by art.21, or failed and neglected to discharge its statutory duties and obligations regarding supply of water. He has pointed out that according to the petitioners themselves water supplied by the corporation was reaching the premises, but their landlords stopped supply of water to their respective flats by deciding not to operate the pump and the illegally sunk deep tube well. He has further said that the petitioners have not produced any material to show that the corporation ever granted any permission to anyone to sink a deep tube well in the premises. His contention is that the writ petition is just not maintainable. He has further said that the petitioners have not produced any material to show that the corporation ever granted any permission to anyone to sink a deep tube well in the premises. His contention is that the writ petition is just not maintainable. The questions which have arisen for decision are these: (i) whether the corporation has infringed the petitioners’ fundamental right guaranteed by art.21 of the constitution; (ii) whether the corporation has failed and neglected to discharge its any duty or obligation regarding water supply to the premises in question; (iii) whether the dispute involved in the writ petition is a pure private dispute; (iv) whether in view of the provisions in s.27 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 the writ petition is at all maintainable; and (v) whether because of the interim orders made in the case directing the special officer to supply water to the petitioners it is to be held that even if the writ petition is not maintainable, the arrangement made by the interim orders should be permitted to remain. As to the question of violation of the petitioners’ fundamental right guaranteed by art.21 of the Constitution of India, I do not see how, on the facts of the case, it can be said that the corporation has infringed their fundamental right. As will appear from their letters dated March 8th, 2006 and March 10th, 2006 written to the authority of the corporation and the trustees for the trust respectively, their own case that led to filing of the writ petition was this. In the letter to the authority of the corporation they said: “The said premises is tenanted in its entirety and that it had the usual amenities of corporation water-supply through an underground reservoir from where water was being lifted by a pump to the overhead tank. We are constrained to find that the said landlord have since disconnected power supply from the pump attached to the UG reservoir. We are constrained to find that the said landlord have since disconnected power supply from the pump attached to the UG reservoir. As a result, the premises has been without any water-supply for days together and we, the tenants with our family members including old and ailing persons and children have been suffering greatly and as such we send this SOS seeking your kind intervention urgently.” In their letter to the trustees for the trust they said: “Supply of corporation water reaches the underground reservoir, all right, but you have deliberately snapped the power supply to the motor and pump which lifts the water to the overhead tank for distribution to the respective flats. We find it difficult to understand how as a responsible landlord you can indulge in this sort of illegal and inhuman act, wherein old, ailing persons and children are being severely affected.” It is therefore evident that the corporation never declined to supply water to the premises, and rather that, admittedly, it was supplying water. Hence I am unable to accept the contention that since the corporation infringed the petitioners’ fundamental right guaranteed by art.21, the petitioners were entitled to take out the writ petition. The next question is whether the corporation failed and neglected to discharge its statutory duties and obligations regarding supply of water to the premises. For examining this question relevant provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 need to be seen. Part V of the Act deals with civic services, and Chapter XVII of the Act falling in that part deals with water supply. In s.233 the various expressions used in the chapter have been defined. For examining this question relevant provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 need to be seen. Part V of the Act deals with civic services, and Chapter XVII of the Act falling in that part deals with water supply. In s.233 the various expressions used in the chapter have been defined. By the provisions in s.234 a duty has been cast on the corporation to take steps from time to time – (a) for ascertaining the sufficiency and wholesomeness of water supplied within Kolkata; (b) for providing a supply of wholesome water in pipes to every part of Kolkata in which there are houses, for domestic purposes of the occupants thereof, and for taking the pipes affording that supply to such point or points as will enable the houses to be connected thereto at a reasonable cost, so, however, that the corporation shall not be required to do anything which is not practicable at a reasonable cost or to provide such a supply to any part of Kolkata where such a supply is already available at such point or points aforesaid; (c) for providing, as far as possible, a supply of wholesome water otherwise than in pipes to every part of Kolkata in which there are houses, for domestic purposes of the occupants thereof and to which it is not practicable to provide a supply in pipes at a reasonable cost, and in which danger to health arises from the insufficiency or unwholesomeness of the existing supply and a public supply is required and can be provided at a reasonable cost, and for securing that such supply is available within a reasonable distance of every house in that part. The provisions in s.234(1)(b) first proviso empower the corporation to levy an annual fee for supplying water, on the owner or the occupier of, or on the person liable to pay property tax on, any house to which such supply of wholesome water is made. The provisions in s.234(1)(b) first proviso empower the corporation to levy an annual fee for supplying water, on the owner or the occupier of, or on the person liable to pay property tax on, any house to which such supply of wholesome water is made. In view of the provisions in s.234A, the owner of a part or flat of a building for which fee for supply of water is charged may recover the entire amount of such fee from the occupier thereof who uses it for residential purpose or otherwise, and if there is more than one occupier, the amount of fee for supply of water may be apportioned or recovered from each such occupier in such proportion as the annual value of the portion occupied by him bears to the total annual value of the building comprising such part or flat. Section 234C says that for the purpose of securing adequate and uniform supply of wholesome water to every premises, house, flat or building, the municipal commissioner may require the owner of the premises or building to set up electric pumps or other contrivances whereby water may be caused to reach the topmost storey and all parts of the premises or building. It further says that the municipal commissioner may also require the owner of a premises or building to sink tube well or cause tube well to be sunk to supplement the supply of water to all parts of the premises or building. Section 241A says that where any supply of wholesome water has been made to any premises or building, either for domestic purpose or for any other purpose, through a meter or ferrule attached to the supply pipe in such premises or building, it shall be presumed, irrespective of the size of the ferrule that the supply of as much quantity of such water as may pass through such ferrule, has been made, and there shall not be raised any dispute about the payment of any fee for such supply on any ground whatsoever except on the ground of disconnection, if any, of the supply pipe as aforesaid under any provision of this Act or the rules or the regulations made thereunder. It is therefore evident from the relevant provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 that the statutory duty and obligation of the corporation is to supply wholesome water in pipes by taking the supply to such point or points as will enable a house connected thereto to use and enjoy the water. In the present case there is no dispute that the corporation has discharged its such duty by making wholesome water supplied through its pipes freely available to the house in which the petitioners are tenants. The corporation is empowered to call upon the owner of a premises or building to set up electric pumps for ensuring supply of water to all parts of the premises or building, and if necessary, to sink tube well or cause tube well to be sunk to supplement the supply of water to all parts of the premises. Here it is nobody’s case that the corporation was required to call upon the trustees for the trust either to set up any electric pump or to sink a tube well. The pump was existing and a tube well was sunk, though there is nothing to show that for that the corporation had either called upon the trustees for the eighth respondent or granted permission to anyone. In view of the provisions in s. 241A, the petitioners or the trustees for the trust are not entitled to make any grievance against the corporation regarding supply of water to the premises; and in the face of the provisions in ss.27 and 44 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, for cutting off or withholding supply of water by the trustees, as landlords, to the petitioners, their tenants, the corporation could not take any step or action against the landlords. I therefore do not see how the petitioners can contend that the corporation has failed and neglected to discharge its statutory duties and obligations regarding supply of water to the premises. In my view, Mr Panja is not right in saying that the provisions in s.234(3) empowered the authorities of the corporation to deal with the trouble making landlords such as the trustees for the eighth respondent. In my view, Mr Panja is not right in saying that the provisions in s.234(3) empowered the authorities of the corporation to deal with the trouble making landlords such as the trustees for the eighth respondent. It says that without prejudice to the provisions of sub-s.(1) of s.234, the municipal commissioner shall, for the purpose of securing, that, so far as is reasonably practicable, a sufficient supply of wholesome water for domestic purposes is available to every house and every public place, exercise his powers, under the Act, or requiring the owner of such house or public place to provide a supply of water thereto. This provision empowers the municipal commissioner to compel an owner of a house or a public place to ensure that the house or public place is connected to the pipes through which wholesome water is supplied by the corporation to every part of the city so that the water reaches every house. The provision does not empower the municipal commissioner to compel the owner of the house or public place to supply water from the underground reservoir to the occupants of the house or public place. I am therefore unable to accept the contention that alleging failure to discharge statutory duty and obligation by the corporation, the petitioners were entitled to take out this writ petition. I fully agree with Mr Bandopadhyay that with a pure private dispute the petitioners have taken out this writ petition making the corporation and its authorities respondents. They instituted a suit before the civil court on May 3rd, 2006. By order dated May 22nd, 2006 the civil court rejected their prayer for mandatory interim order directing the trustees for the trust who were the only defendants in the suit to restore supply of water to them. The application of the defendants in the suit filed under Or.7, R.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected by the civil court, and the revision application filed in this court was allowed by order dated January 4th, 2007. The plaint was rejected on the ground that in view of the provisions in s.27 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 the suit was not maintainable. Having failed to obtain any interim order from the civil court, they took out this writ petition. The plaint was rejected on the ground that in view of the provisions in s.27 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 the suit was not maintainable. Having failed to obtain any interim order from the civil court, they took out this writ petition. As a result, again the question has arisen whether in view of the provisions in s.27 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 the writ petition is maintainable. The corporation and its authorities were in no way connected with the disputes between the petitioners and their landlords. Specific case of the petitioners is that supply of water to them was stopped by their landlords who decided not to operate the pump for causing the water in the underground reservoir reach the overhead tank, and then to the respective flats of the occupants of the buildings. They claim that they are tenants. Mr. Bandopadhyay has rightly said that such a situation as in the present case is to be governed entirely by the provisions in s. 27 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Section 27 provides for penalty for cutting off or withholding of essential supply or service by a landlord to his tenant. It has been specifically said by explanation that essential supply or service shall include supply of water. The provision empowers the controller to pass appropriate order directing the landlord to restore the complained of supply or service immediately, pending the enquiry he is to make on the basis of the complaint of the tenant. The controller is empowered to make interim order without giving any notice to the landlord. If the controller finds that the landlord wrongfully withheld supply or service, he shall pass an order directing the landlord to restore the supply or service concerned; and he may direct the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant. I therefore find that Mr Bandopadhyay is right in saying that the remedy provided by s.27 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is not an alternative remedy that was available to the petitioners, but was the only remedy, if any, in the face of their allegations made in their letters and then in the writ petition. Hence the question of exercising discretion in favour of entertaining the writ petition cannot arise at all. Hence the question of exercising discretion in favour of entertaining the writ petition cannot arise at all. With their private disputes between their landlords and themselves, they simply were not entitled to approach the writ court, though they were entitled to approach the controller, as has already been held by this court while allowing the revision application of the trustees for the eighth respondent. Making the corporation and its authorities respondents in the case, they are not entitled to approach the writ court. They have done exactly that. It may be noted that in view of the provisions in s.44 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1977, no civil court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to fixation of fair rent in relation to any premises to which the Act applies or to eviction of any tenant therefrom or to any other matter which the controller is empowered by or under the Act to decide and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the controller under the Act shall be granted by any civil court. Hence when even the civil court is not competent to decide the dispute in question, there is no question of visualizing any statutory duty or obligation of the corporation to do that. I therefore hold that the writ petition is not maintainable. The last question that requires decision is: whether, even if the writ petition is held to be not maintainable, the steps taken in terms of the interim orders made in it should be permitted to remain. In other sense: whether the respondents are entitled to invite this court to make appropriate order directing restoration of the status quo. A pump was installed by the special officer appointed by this court and he is operating it through a caretaker. I am unable to accept Mr Panja’s contention that even if I hold that the writ petition is to be dismissed as not maintainable, no order should be made to take away the effect of the interim orders made in it. The interim orders were made in aid of the final relief. Now I find that the writ petition being not maintainable, no relief can be given to the petitioners therein. The interim orders were made in aid of the final relief. Now I find that the writ petition being not maintainable, no relief can be given to the petitioners therein. Hence the things which have taken place because of the interim orders, in my view, have to be set right by this court itself. I cannot leave the parties in the position they are placed today because of the interim orders. In my opinion, it is the duty of this court to place the parties in the position in which they were at the date the writ petition was filed. Needless to say that the petitioners will be at liberty to approach the controller with their complaint. That is the only forum competent in law to adjudicate their disputes with their landlords. For these reasons, I dismiss the writ petition, and allow the application taken out by the trustees for the eighth respondent. The special officer appointed in the case shall hand over keys of the locks used by him to the caretaker or any other person appointed by the trustees for the trust, and before that he shall remove the pump installed by him and shall hand it over to the person or persons at whose expenses it was installed. Persons engaged by him shall be discharged by him. These exercises he shall carry out within forty-eight hours when he shall be deemed to be discharged. There shall be no order for costs. Mr Ghosh, counsel for the proforma respondents, prays for stay. Mr Dhar, appearing for the petitioners, makes the same prayer. Mr Tarafdar, counsel for the trustees for the eighth respondent, opposes the prayer. I find absolutely no reason to make any order staying the operation of my judgement. I have held that the writ petition is not maintainable, and that remedy of the petitioners, if any, is available only under s.27 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Hence stay is refused. Urgent certified xerox copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties, if applied for, within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the section concerned.