A tenant has the right to take electric connection in the premises let out to him as it constitutes an improvement of the premises and does not amount to waste.

Kamla Sahai, J.

1. This appeal by the defendant arises out of a suit for declaration that the defendant has no right to take electric connection in the premises described in Schedule B of the plaint, which had been let out to him, or to fix meter and wire in the walls of the premises described in Schedule A which are in khas possession of the plaintiff, (or directing the defendant to remove the electric connections and for damages amounting to Rs. 229/- at the rate of four annas per day from the 24th December, 1958 to the 28th June, 1961

2. The admitted facts are that the plaintiff owns a three storeyed house, bearing holding No. 71, in Jugselai Chauk Bazar, and that the defendant has been inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of a portion of the premises on the first floor described in Schedule B of the plaint. It is also admitted by the parties that there was no electric connection in the portion let out to the defendant at the time when the tenancy was created, and that the defendant has, after creation of the tenancy, taken electric connection in the portion under his occupation.

3. The learned Munsif, who tried the suit, has stated, while dealing with issue No. 4, that the plaintiffs lawyer pressed for a decree for damages but not for the declaration sought by the plaintiff. On a further consideration of the evidence, he refused to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the declarations sought by him but passed a decree for Rs. 25/- as damages for fixing pegs in the walls of the plaintiff and making a hole in the roof. An appeal against Ihe decree passed by the Munsif was placed for disposal before the Subordinate Judge of Jamshedpur. He allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in full, giving the declarations which the plaintiff asked for as well as giving a deeree for the entire amount of Rs. 229/- as damages.

4. Appearing on behalf of the appellant. Mr. R. S. Chatterjee has urged that the defendant-tenant could certainly take electric connection in the premises let out to him because the act of taking such electric connection could not amount to waste but undoubtedly constituted an improvement of the premises. On the other hand, Mr B. C. De, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, has argued that the only right of a tenant in respect of premises leased to him is to enjoy those premises in the condition in which he took them: he is not permitted under the law to make additions or alterations in the premises in his tenancy without the consent of the land lord.

5. In my opinion, the problem, which arises for consideration in this case, should be bifurcated in two parts. The first question to be considered is whether the defendant was entitled to take electric connection in the premises leased out to him, and the second question is whether he could take the electric wire through premises which were not in his occupation as a tenant.

6. So far as the first question is concerned, there can possibly be no doubt at all.

Mr. De has himself referred to sec. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act which lays down, among other things, that "a lease of immoveable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property.. .. .. " The lessee is, in view of the definition of lease in this section itself, entitled to enjoy the property. This means that he is entitled to make such use of the premises let out to him as may be reasonable. Mr; De has also referred to portions of Clauses (m) and (o) of sec. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. I quote only those portions: "(m) the lessee is bound to keep, and on the termination of the lease to restore, the property in as good condition as it was in at the time when he was put in possession, subject only to the changes caused by reasonable were and tear or irresistible force, .... .. "

(o) the lessee may use the property and its products (if any) as a person of ordinary prudence would use them if they were his own; but he must not use, or permit another to use, the property