PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Counsel for the parties are present. Arguments heard. 2. Dr. M. Kala, HOD & Professor had requested the Chairman, Bangalore Water Supply & Sanitary Board for sanitary and water connections from them for her residence at Bangalore. The opposite parties directed her to pay for the said connection vide letter No. 03.09.2004. After some time she thought that she did not need water connection and took the sanitary connection only. She sent a letter in this context also dated 15.09.2004. She paid Rs. 53,700/- for getting the sanitary connection. 3. On 15.05.2010 she was surprised to find that the sanitary was blocked without any prior intimation. It also transpired that she did not pay the sanitary charges from 2004-2010. She requested the opposite parties to open her sanitary connection and she was ready to pay the arrears, if any. The opposite parties replied that half dia domestic water supply and sanitary connections were approved on payment of Rs. 1,14,192/-. Vide another letter dated 15.02.2010 the opposite parties demanded a sum of Rs. 1,36,700/-. 4. The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum directed the appellant to collect the sanitary charges as applicable to the residential premises No. 1106, Sector-1, HSR Layout, Bangalore from 21.09.2004 onwards. 5. Aggrieved by that, the First Appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order observed: “The relief sought for by the respondent in her complaint appears to be in the nature of declaratory that is seeking direction to the Ops to collect only arrears of sanitary charges from 2004-2010 even though knowing fully she has not paid the sanitary charges right from 2004 to 2010 and treated it as domestic connection cannot be considered. The DF without considering the defence taken by the Ops in their version passed the declaratory order. It is for the Civil Court to try such disputed question of facts and law involved and in our view the respondent has not approached the DF with clear hands. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that, the order under challenge passed by the DF is perverse and incorrect. Accordingly, we pass the following: Appeal is allowed. The order under challenge passed by the I Addl., DF Bangalore in Complaint No. 566/2011 dated 13.05.2011 is hereby set aside.” 6. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is not a commercial transaction. He has invited our attention towards the prayer made in the complaint where she has stated in para ‘a’ :- “To direct to collect only the arrears in respect of sanitary charges from 2004 till June, 2010 as per the letter sent by the Opposite Party on 14.05.2010 at the rates applicable to domestic connection and from July, 2010 at the rates applicable to Payment Guest Accommodation.” 7. Counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that they are running a hotel but could not invite our attention to any evidence in this respect. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner/complainant that the petitioner is using it as PG for getting the additional income. 8. We are inclined to agree with counsel for the petitioner. The case of the petitioner can be equated with the case of tenant. One can get additional income from the tenant. This is a well-known fact that many students go for education in Bangalore. They get the accommodation as PGs. They can be equated with the tenants. This is not a commercial deal. This is a domestic connection. Therefore, the arguments preferred by the counsel for the respondent deserve no consideration. 9. The second submission made by the counsel for the respondent is that Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964 is a complete code and this court should send the case with the direction that the petitioner/appellant should file an appeal under Section 120 of the Act. 10. We find no merit in this argument. The language of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is crystal clear. It clearly lays that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. 11. Consequently, we hereby accept the revision petition; direct the opposite parties to send a domestic bill regarding the sanitary connection from 2004 upto the date within one month and the petitioner will pay the said bill within another one month. It is also transpired that the sanitary connection has already stands opened subject to petitioner’s depositing Rs. 50,000/- as arrears. That will remain open for two months and the said will further open without any restriction if the order of this Commission is complied with. The amount already paid shall be adjusted. | 
