1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2009 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2009 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2009 IN IN IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 2098 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2098 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2098 OF 2008 Sudhirkumar J. Agarwal. .. Appellant. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. .. Respondent. Mr. Ganesh Gole for the Appellant. None for Respondent. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE: 12TH MARCH, 2009. DATE: 12TH MARCH, 2009. DATE: 12TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is the owner of four storey building situated at Sion (West). The ground floor of 2 the building is used for non-residential purpose out of which shop nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 are used for running a hotel and they are provided with separate water meters for commercial use. The occupiers of these shops pay the water charges as per their meters. However, shop nos. 3, 5 and 6 do not have any separate water connection and it is the contention of the appellant that they do not use any water for commercial purposes as shop no. 3 is a medical shop, shop no. 5 is a motor spare parts shop and shop no. 6 is a grocery shop. 3. The case of the appellant is that earlier he paid water charges for the said premises @ Rs. 3/- per litre. But suddenly he was issued bill for water charges @ Rs. 22/- per litre. He contended that the charges demanded in its bills were exorbitant and unreasonable. It was also contended that shop nos. 3, 5 and 6 did not use water for commercial purpose nor they had water connection similar to shop nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7. Yet, demand for water charges was made and the respondents by their letter dated 9.4.2002 threatened the appellant that the water supply would be cut unless the charges as demanded were paid. Hence, the appellant filed a suit being Suit No. 4515 of 2002 for declaration that the demand bill relating to water charges and the letter dated 9.4.2002 issued by the respondent Corporation is not binding upon him and he 3 also prayed for a relief of permanent injunction against B.M.C. from enforcing the said notice. The said suit came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 26.9.2008. An appeal being First Appeal No. 2098 of 2008 came to be preferred against the said decision. The said appeal is pending. In the said appeal the appellant preferred an application for interim relief being Civil Application No. 5399 of 2008. In the said civil application, the appellant prayed for stay to the payment of the water bill. The ground on which stay was sought is that the water supply of the Corporation is not used by the appellant as far as shop nos. 3, 5 and 6 are concerned as these premises do not have a water connection. 4. The learned Single Judge by order dated 20.11.2008 rejected the said Civil Application . Being aggrieved thereby the present L.P.A. has been preferred. Apart from the issue that this L.P.A. is not maintainable, even on merits we find that the appellant has no case so as to interfere with the said decision of the learned Single Judge. It is an admitted fact that there is a common latrine in the said building, water is used in the said latrine and the employees of the said three shops use the said common latrine. In such case, it cannot be said that they are not using any water. Hence, no case is made 4 out for interference. The L.P.A. stands dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of the L.P.A., the civil application does not survive. The same also stands dismissed as infructuous. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.)