SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Cal) 378

High Court Of Calcutta
Susanta Chatterji
ASSOCIATED INDAM MECHANICAL Private LTD. - Appellant
Versus
C.E.S.C. - Respondent
C. O.  9302  Of  1988
Decided On : 09/21/1988

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.CHANDA, A.K.CHATTERJEE, ABHIJIT CHATTERJI

A bona fide occupier, even if not a lawful occupier, is entitled to the supply of electricity pending adjudication of the possession dispute before the competent Civil Court.

Headnote:

ELECTRICITY ACT - SECTION 12(2) - BONA FIDE OCCUPIER - INTERPRETATION - SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY - SUB-TENANT - RIGHT TO SUPPLY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Associated Indam Mechanical Private Ltd., sought a writ of mandamus to compel the CESC authorities to restore electricity to their premises at 3, Esplanade East, Calcutta, and to transfer the meter to their name. The petitioner claimed to be a bona fide occupier of the premises, having enjoyed electricity from 1968 to 9.8.88 through a meter standing in the name of Sudson Pvt. Ltd. However, the added party, Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., claimed to be the owners and landlords of the premises and asserted that the tenancy of Sudson Pvt. Ltd. had been determined and the tenant had surrendered possession.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to claim supply of electricity through the meter standing in the name of Sudson Pvt. Ltd., as the same had been surrendered unequivocally. However, the court also found that the petitioner was in occupation of a portion of the premises for a long time and was entitled to the supply of electricity so long as the possession was not taken under due process of law.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was a bona fide occupier of the premises entitled to supply of electricity under Section 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have electricity supplied through a new meter installed by the CESC Authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act and held that a trespasser and/or any unlawful occupier is not entitled to claim for the supply of electricity as a matter of right. However, the court also held that the petitioner, who was found to be in occupation of a portion of the premises for a long time, was entitled to the supply of electricity pending adjudication of the possession dispute before the competent Civil Court.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the CESC Authorities to supply electricity to the petitioner by installing a new meter upon compliance with all the necessary formalities and upon payment of all the outstanding dues by the petitioners. The court clarified that the supply of electricity and/or installation of a new meter would not confer any right upon the petitioners and would be subject to final adjudication by the Competent Civil Court.

SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner M/s. Associated Indam Mechanical Private Ltd. and one of its Directors have jointly filed the present writ petition praying, inter alia, for issuance of a writ mandamus commanding and/or directing the respondents and/or their employees and agents to restore electricity of consumer No. 30008010006 being Meter No. LF0674290 and LF 0402738 at 3, Esplanade East, Calcutta-69 and for other consequential reliefs as stated therein. It is stated in the writ petition that M/s, Associated Indam Mechanical Private Ltd. , is a private limited Company having incorporated under the Companies Act and has its registered Office at 3, Esplanade East, Calcutta and factory at Howrah Industrial Estate. It is further stated that the petitioners were enjoying electricity from 1968 to 9. 8. 88 from the meter standing in the name of Sudson Pvt. Ltd. being consumer number as stated above. It is further alleged that while there is a chain of correspondence between. the petitioner and the CESC authorities the electric line has been disconnected and the petitioner is compelled to file the present writ petition praying for a direction upon the CESC authorities to reconnect the electric line and/or to supply and/or to transfer the meter to the name of the petitioner upon all facts as fully elaborated therein.

( 2 ) THE writ petition was entertained on 16. 8. 88, but the petitioner's prayer for supply of electricity through the meter standing in the name of Sudson Pvt. Ltd. was refused. The CESC authorities were however, given leave to process the pending application of the petitioner No. 1, if any, for providing electricity by installing a new meter upon compliance with all the formalities.

( 3 ) WHILE the writ petition. was pending before this Court, an application was filed by the Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. , for addition of its name as a party respondents, and for intervention in the matter. Being satisfied with the prayer made by Peerless Co. they were added as a party respondent and an affidavit has been filed by the added party stating certain relevant facts of this case.

( 4 ) HAVING gone through the Affidavit filed by the respective parties and having heard Mr. Maitra for the petitioner, Mr. Deb for the CESC authorities and Mr. Chatterjee for the added party, it appears to this Court that the present petitioner is asking for supply of electricity through the meter standing in the name of Sudson Pvt. Ltd. as aforesaid. It is specifically asserted by the added party, i. e. , Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. that they are the owners and landlords of the said premises in question. This assertion is not disputed and challenged by anybody including the petitioners. It is their contention that the actual tenant is Sudson Pvt. Ltd. and the said tenancy has been determined and the tenant has surrendered, While the possession has been obstructed, proper steps have been taken to recover possession of the property by applying under Order 21, Rule 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Competent Civil Court is in seisin of the matter. Mr. Chatterjee argued with force that the present petitioners being not lawful occupiers of the premises in question, they cannot ask for supply of electricity through the meter standing in the name of Sudson Pvt. Ltd. and/or they cannot ask for installation of a new meter under any stretch of imagination. It is their main contention that within the scope and meaning of bona fide occupier as envisaged in Section 12 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, the prayer of the petitioners is thoroughly speculative and misconceived.

( 5 ) MR. Deb, Learned Advocate appearing for CESC authorities has made its position very clear before this Court that the CESC authorities will supply electricity to the petitioners provided it is found by this Court that the petitioner No. 1 is a bona fide occupier of the premises and all outstanding dues are paid and complie




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top