A married daughter does not have a right of residence in the dwelling house under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, and a person with no legal right of residence cannot be considered a bona fide occupier under Section 12(6) of the Indian Electricity Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 9-2-99 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 345 (W) of 1999, whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the respondent No. 1 herein has been allowed.

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the parties are brother and sister. It is also admitted that the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 is married. She filed an application for grant of electrical connection in terms of Section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act. As no order thereupon had been passed, the writ application had been filed. The allegations made in the writ application were traversed by the appellant herein by filing an affidavit-in-opposition

( 3 ) IT appears from the impugned order that a contention was raised that in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, the 8 respondent No. 1 being a married lady, had no right of residence, and in that view of the matter, she cannot be said to be a bona fide occupier as envisaged under sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act. The learned trial Judge, however, repelled the said contention stating :"this is an application filed by the petitioner, inter alia, for having the supply of electricity at the premises in question. The only dispute sought to be raised here by the private respondent who appears through learned Advocate before me and contended that in accordance with Hindu Law, the sister has no right in the property of his late father. I am astonished after hearing such submission on behalf of such private respondent. Learned Advocate failed to produce any law or the provisions of Hindu Law before me in support of his contentions. I am, however, afraid of hearing such submissions. I do not know whether such amendment will take place in near future or ought to have been done as the submissions have been made by the learned Advocate. But, as it stands today, on the basis of law prevailing in this country, the sister or the daughter must have a right in joint property until and unless she is debarred by way of any Will or otherwise. No documents were also produced before me to show that the father has gifted or bequeathed the said property in favour of the private respondent setting aside the right of the daughter. In view of that, I am of the opinion that the attitude of the private respondent is nothing but obnoxious and should not be accepted by any Court of law. I direct the CESC Limited to take immediate steps to effect supply of electricity to the petitioner upon compliance of all the formalities by her within three weeks from the date of such compliance. I further direct that all the parties including the private respondent must comply with this order and if any obstruction is being created by any persons or by private respondent, CESC will be at liberty to take police help at the cost of the petitioner and give effect to this order. The writ application is thus disposed of. ".

( 4 ) MR. Das appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised a short question in support of this appeal. Learned Counsel submits that a bare perusal of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, would show that the respondent No. 1 had no legal right of residence in the dwelling house in question. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on Narashimaha Murthy v. Sm. Susheelabai, reported in 1997 WBLR (SC) 23. It has been further submitted that a learned single Judge of this Court in M/s. Surajbali Pandey and Co. v. CESC Ltd. , reported in 1995 (1) CHN 533, has clearly held that unless a person is in lawful occupation of a premises, he has no legal right to demand electric connection in terms of the Indian Electricity Act.

( 5 ) MR. Halder, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 faced up with the aforementioned situation, has made an attempt to draw our attention to the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition, and submitted that the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 had be