JUDGMENT : (Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.) The Petitioner who is an architect is using premises situated at Plot No.58, Road No.2, Pestom Sagar, Chembur, Mumbai, exclusively for the purposes of his professional work. Before this Court, it is an admitted position that the premises are not being used for residential purposes. The Petitioner had challenged an assessment under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and a decision of the Appellate Authority under Section 127. Both the Authorities held that the Petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the tariffs prescribed for residential consumers. 2. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the establishment of an architect is not a commercial establishment and hence the Petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the residential tariff. 3. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary for the Court to inquire into the broader question as to whether the establishment of an architect is a commercial establishment. The Court is concerned with interpreting the tariff schedule which has been prescribed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission on 24 April 2007. The tariff schedule forms a part of the tariff order issued on 24 April 2007 under Sections 61 and 62. The Low Tension Tariff comprises of various categories. LT-1 or the residential category consists of (i) Below Poverty Line (BPL consumers) and (ii) residential consumers other than the BPL. The latter (residential consumers other than BPL) comprises inter alia of the following : “d Residential premises used by professionals like Lawyers, Doctors, Professional Engineers, Chartered Accountants, etc. in furtherance of their professional activity in their residences or premises used by `Not for Profit’ charitable institutions registered with the Charity Commissioner but shall not include Nursing Homes and any Surgical Wards.” 4. From this, it is evident that residential premises have to be used by professionals, in furtherance of their professional activity “in their residences”. The words “in their residences” clearly postulates that the premises must be used for residence. If, in premises which are used for the purposes of residence, a professional also carries on his professional work, he would be entitled to the benefit of the residential tariff. This category obviously is not attracted where the premises are not used as a residence at all. 5. If, in premises which are used for the purposes of residence, a professional also carries on his professional work, he would be entitled to the benefit of the residential tariff. This category obviously is not attracted where the premises are not used as a residence at all. 5. The applicability of the second category which is the LT-2 or commercial category is defined as follows “2.1 Applicability Electricity used at Low/ Medium Voltage for operating various appliances used for purposes like lighting, heating, cooking, air-conditioners, cleaning, refrigeration and Commercial motive power in commercial and business premises, clubs, restaurants and hotels and other premises not covered under the LT1.” (Emphasis supplied) What is relevant for the purposes of this case is that this category covers “other premises not covered under the LT-1”. 6. The third category is the LT-3 or Industrial category. 7. LT-2 or commercial category covers, in the circumstances, other premises which are not covered by LT-1. Hence, there is a fallacy in the submission which is urged on behalf of the Petitioner. The tariff which has been applied to the Petitioner is not on the basis that his establishment is a commercial establishment. The Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the residential tariff since his premises are not used as a residence at all. The Petitioner is subjected to the LT-2 tariff since his premises fall within the description of other premises not covered under LT 1. The challenge to the tariff order and the schedule is not pressed by Counsel during the course of the hearing and the issue is only one of interpretation. The judgment of the Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board and ors. vs. Shiv Narayan and another (2005) 7 SCC 282), holds that there is a distinction between a professional activity and an activity of a commercial character and even if a user is not domestic, it does not automatically become commercial. While this distinction is a well established distinction in law, in the present case, the Petitioner (i) does not fall in the residential or LT-1 category and (ii) falls in LT-2 category by virtue of the residuary provision to which a reference has been made earlier. 8. There is hence no merit in the Petition which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.