Judgment :- 1. The petitioner herein is having a shop bearing No.17, situated in TNHB Complex, Jawarharlal Nehru Road, Vadapalani. The petitioner has been paying the water and sewerage tax by a impugned demand dated 16.02.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to pay sewerage charges and the petitioner also gave a reply dated 14.03.2005. However, without considering the same, cut off notice was issued by the respondents. Therefore, challenging the impugned demand, made for the sewerage charges, the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by way of interim order, 50% of the demand, sought to be made on the petitioner has been paid and thereafter, the remaining amount has also been paid. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, stating that as provided under Regulation 12 (ii) of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (in short “CMWSSB”) the petitioner is duty bound to pay the sewerage charges. 4. It has been further submitted that admittedly, the petitioner has been given sewerage connection and therefore, the order impugned, will have to be sustained. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that admittedly, the petitioner has been given sewerage connection. When the petitioner has been enjoying the said connection and using the same, he cannot challenge the payment of charges, that are due from him. The Regulation 12 (ii) of CMWSSB provides for levying of sewerage charges, payable by the consumer whose flats/shops/premises possess sewerage connection. Therefore, the petitioner cannot question the liability, to pay the sewerage charges. Hence, he submitted that order impugned will have to be sustained. 6. The contention of Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the demand cannot be made for a period, more than three years, cannot be countenanced. The question raised in the present case on hand, has already been decided by this Court in W.P.No.13894 of 1990 dated 28.09.2009 wherein, this Court has held as follows:- “The learned counsel for the petitioner, in challenging the validity of the said proceeding initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, would contend that the MMWSS Board being only a statutory authority and not the State, cannot invoke the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. But the learned counsel would frankly admit that under Section. But the learned counsel would frankly admit that under Section. 74 of the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act have been made applicable to recover all sums due to MMWSS Board, as if it is arrears of land revenue. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while striking down the validity of Section 52-A of the Revenue Recovery Act , this Court has observed in (C.H.Venkatasamy Vs. T.N.S.I.Corporation Ltd., A.I.R. 1981 Madras 318) that the word " land revenue" has acquired a specific connotation and what is not the land revenue cannot be recovered under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, Section 52 of the Revenue Recovery Act dealing with recovery of moneys due to the Government, states that all sums due to the Government may be recovered by resorting to Revenue Recovery Act. This amendment had been introduced in the Revenue Recovery Act before the Constitution came into force. Therefore, it is not ideal for the petitioner to contend that the Revenue Recovery Act was applicable only to recovery as well as by ways of arrears of land revenue and nothing else. The third submission of the petitioner is that the demand is barred by limitation, because the sums stated to be due for the period beyond three years are sought to be recovered by the impugned notice. Herein, learned counsel frankly admits that Revenue Recovery Act could be resorted to and in view of Section 74 of the MMWSS Board Act, there is no period of limitation for the recovery of arrears. " 7. Therefore, in view of the said pronouncement of this Court, coupled with the power available under Section 75 of CMWSSB, this Court is of the view that the impugned order will have to be sustained. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.