(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment and order of Banerjee J. dated 3rd March 1949 dismissing an application made under Section 45, Specific Belief Act. The petitioner was one of the sons and heirs of the late Samrangini Roy Chowdhuri, who was one of the recorded joint owners and occupiers of a market which was situate at 180 Kalighat Road, Bhowanipore. This market was supplied with filtered and unfiltered water by the Corporation of Calcutta and the owners were charged for this supply of water as water supplied for domestic purposes.
(2.) On or about 22nd May 1917 the Corporation informed the owners that it had been resolved that the filtered water supply to markets and bazaars and the unfiltered water supply for cleansing the stalls, drains, streets (paths) of the markets and bazaars should be charged for under Section 230, Calcutta Municipal Act, at the ordinary rates for the supply of water for non-domestic purposes. The quarterly charge for water for non domestic purpos9S wag Rs. 312 and payment was demanded upon that basis. The owners protested and refused to pay for water at the increased rates, The charges for water mounted up and on or about 27th November 1948, the Corporation cut off the water supply of this market. Demands were made to the Corporation to restore the connection, but the latter refused to do so and this application under Section 45, Specific Belief Act was filed in this Court; on 15th December 1948. A Rule was issued and Banerjee J. made an interim order on the Corporation to restore the connection without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties when the matter would come up for hearing.
(3.) Before Banerjee J., it was contended by the Corporation that the supply of water to markets was supply of water for non-domestic purposes and therefore the increased charges were permissible and as the owners had refused to pay these charges the Corporation were entitled to cut oft' the water supply. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that the supply of water was clearly for domestic purposes as the water was required by the stall-holders for cooking and for other domestic purposes. After reviewing the authorities Banerjee J. came to the conclusion that the supply of water to this market was a supply for domestic purposes. The respondents were prepared to argue before us that this decision is erroneous, but it is unnecessary to decide the question finally because this case can be disposed of on other grounds.