Owners of buildings are not liable for electrical energy consumed by their tenants in the absence of a privity of contract between the owners and the electricity supplier.

Headnote:
ELECTRICITY ACT - SECTION 2(C) - DEFINITION OF CONSUMER - OWNERS OF BUILDINGS NOT LIABLE FOR ELECTRICAL ENERGY CONSUMED BY TENANTS - NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT BETWEEN OWNERS AND ELECTRICITY BOARD.
Fact of the Case:

Owners of buildings filed revision applications challenging decrees passed against them for consumption of electricity by their tenants. The Maharashtra State Electricity Board filed suits against the owners and their tenants for recovery of arrears of charges for electrical energy supplied to the tenants. The owners contended that there was no privity of contract between them and the Electricity Board and they were not liable for the energy consumed by the tenants.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the owners of buildings were not liable for electrical energy consumed by their tenants. The court interpreted the definition of "consumer" in section 2(c) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and held that the definition included two parts. The first part included any person who is supplied with energy by a licensee, while the second part included any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee. The court held that the emphasis in the second part of the definition was on the word "premises" and that the owner of a building was not included in the definition of "consumer" where the premises were in the occupation of his tenant.
Issues: Whether the owners of buildings could be made liable for the electrical energy consumed by their tenants through the service connections obtained by the tenants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the owners of buildings were not liable for electrical energy consumed by their tenants because: * There was no privity of contract between the owners and the Electricity Board. * The definition of "consumer" in section 2(c) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, did not include the owners of buildings where the premises were in the occupation of their tenants.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision applications and set aside the decrees of the Trial Court in so far as the applicants were concerned.

JUDGMENT - Rele B.J. J.-Both these revision applications are disposed of by this common judgment as the facts and the points involved in both these revision applications are identical.

2. The applicants in both these revision applications are the owners of their respective buildings and they have filed these revision applications against the decree passed against them by the Court of Small Causes at Nagpur for consumption of electricity by their tenants.

3. The non-applicant Maharashtra State Electricity Board filed suits in the Court of Small Causes at Nagpur against the above-named applicants and their tenants for recovery of arrears of charges for electrical energy supplied to the tenants. The claim which is the subject matter of Civil Revision Application No. 178 of 1977 is for Rs. 88.08 for the electrical energy consumed by the second respondent between the period 4–12–1973 and 3–12–1975 inclusive of interest of Rs. 18 and notice charges Rs. 10. The claim, which is the subject matter of Civil Revision Application No. 413 of 1979 is for Rs. 149–33 for the electrical energy consumed by the Oriental Research and Chemical Laboratory Ltd. Uttarpara, Hooghly as the tenant of the applicant for the period from 6–9–1972 to 14–4–1973 inclusive of interest Rs. 48.42 and Rs. 10 as notice charges.

4. It is an admitted fact that on the application of the tenants in each case, service connection for business lighting was given to the tenants in occupation of their respective premises and the applicants are sought to be made liable by the non-applicant Maharashtra State-Electricity Board for electrical energy supplied to the tenants and consumed by the tenants only on the basis that as owners of buildings, they fall within the definition of the word “consumer” defined in section 2 (c) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

5. The applicants resisted the suits and they contended that there is no privity of contract between the applicants and the first non-applicant and as such, they are not liable for the electrical energy consumed by the tenants who obtained the electrical connection in their own names. It may be stated, that in Civil Revision Application No. 413 of 1979, the first non-applicant deleted the name of the tenant Oriental Research and Chemical Laboratory Ltd. and claimed the electrical charges from the applicant, the owner of building. The trial Court negatived the contention of the applicants and decreed the suits. Against the said decrees, the applicants have filed these revision applications.

6. Shri Moharil has submitted that the applicants are not supplied with electrical energy and, therefore, they would not fall within the first part of the definition of “consumer” in section 2 (c) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. In regard to the second part of the definition of the word “consumer”, Shri Moharil has submitted that the premises which were connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of the first non-applicant are not of the applicants, but that the premises are of the tenants and therefore, merely because the applicants are the owners of the buildings, they cannot be said to be persons whose premises are connected for the purpose of receiving energy and that, therefore, the, trial Court was in error, in holding the owners of the buildings liable for electrical energy supplied to the premises occupied by the tenants. Shri Mohta adopted the arguments of Shri Moharil.

7. Shri Moonje has, on the other hand submitted that by the Amending Act 32 of 1959, the definition of the word “consumer” has been altered so as to make it an all inclusive definition. His submission is that a person like the owner of a building may not escape his liability by making a sub-mission that there is no privity of contract between him and the licensee supplying the electrical energy that the legislature has thought it fit to alter the definition of the word 'consumer' so as to make it an all inclusive definition. He has submitted tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document