Back
1994 Supreme(Cal) 378
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Altamas Kabir, J.
M/s. Surajbali Pandey & Company
vs.
CESC Ltd. & Ors.
Matter No. 2000 of 1993
Decided on : December 20, 1994
Advocate Appeared:
Saktinath Mukherjee, Chandranath Mukherjee for the petitioner; Partha Sarathi Sen Gupta. Sranik Singhvi for the respondents;
Soumitra Pal for the CESC.
A person claiming an independent electric connection in the premises occupied by him must be in lawful occupation thereof.
Headnote:
ELECTRICITY - INSTALLATION OF NEW ELECTRIC METER - MANDAMUS - LAWFUL OCCUPATION OF PREMISES - TENANCY - INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910 - SECTIONS 12(2) AND 12(6) - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 13(1)(A) - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed to be a tenant under the respondent and had an electric meter in its name. It surrendered the D.C. meter and applied for an A.C. connection, but the CESC Ltd. was restrained by an injunction order passed by the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction upon the CESC Ltd. to instal a new A.C. electric meter and a further direction upon the respondents not to obstruct the petitioner's enjoyment of electricity in the room.
Finding of the Court:
The petitioner failed to establish that it was in lawful occupation of the room in question, and the claim was disputed by the respondent under whom the petitioner claimed to be a tenant. The petitioner's claim to have a new electric connection in the room was hit by the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner, as a lawful occupant, was entitled to a new electric connection without the consent of the landlord under Section 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910? 2. Whether the interim order of injunction passed by the City Civil Court at Calcutta barred the CESC Ltd. from providing a new connection to the petitioner? 3. Whether the petitioner could rely on the order passed in the revisional application to disregard the injunction order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as amended in 1959, did not require the consent of the landlord for a tenant to obtain electric supply in his tenanted premises. 2. The interim order of injunction passed by the City Civil Court at Calcutta did not bind the petitioner or the CESC Ltd. due to the order passed in the revisional application filed by the petitioner. 3. However, the petitioner's claim to a new electric connection was hit by the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as the petitioner failed to establish lawful occupation of the room in question.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish lawful occupation of the room in question.
Altamas Kabir, J.:
1. The petitioner concern claims to be a tenant under the respondent No.5 in respect of one room at premises No. 1/1A, Vansitart Row, Calcutta-700001. According to the petitioner concern, it had an electric meter for D.C. connection in its name in the said room, which it had surrendered in order to obtain an A.C. connection, in keeping with the prevailing rules of the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'CESC Ltd.'). It appears that the petitioner concern, thereafter, applied to the CESC Ltd. for A.C. connection in place of the D.C. meter, which had been surrendered, upon payment by the petitioner concern of all the necessary charges and upon compliance with all other requirements. Since the CESC Ltd. was dragging its feet in the matter, the petitioner concern appears to have approached the Calcutta District Forum and on and August, 1991, an order was passed by the Forum directing the CESC Ltd. to instal a new A.C. meter within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. Pursuant to the said order, the CESC Ltd. was about to instal the new connection when it was served with an order passed by the learned Judge, 7th Court, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1088 of 1991, restraining it during the pendency of the suit from giving supply of electric energy to anybody till the capacity of the cable for the same was enhanced.
2. This writ application has now been filed for a direction upon the CESC Ltd. and its authorities to instal a new A.C. electric meter in the name of the petitioner concern in the room at premises 1/1A, Vansitart Row, Calcutta-700 001, which the petitioner concern claims to be in its possession, and for a further direction upon the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 not to obstruct or interfere with the petitioner's enjoyment of electricity in the said room.
3. It appears that on coming to learn of the order of injunction passed by the learned Judge, 7th Court, City Civil Court at Calcutta, the petitioner concern applied for being added as a party in the above mentioned suit, but the said prayer was refused by the learned Judge by his Order No. 21 dated 21st September, 1992, on the ground that the petitioner concern was a third party to the facts at issue in the suit. It appears that the petitioner concern, thereafter, moved a revisional application in this Court against the said order, which was disposed of on 11th March, 1993. Although, this Court did not choose to interfere with the order passed by the learned Court below, it disposed of the revisional application with the observation that since the petitioner was not a party to the suit, any order passed therein would not be binding upon the petitioner concern so far dealings with anyone, including the CESC Ltd. in respect of the suit premises concerned, and would not also affect the rights of the petitioner concern, if any, in the suit premises in any way.
4. It is the petitioner's case that since despite the aforesaid order pa1J5ed on the revisional application of the petitioner concern, the CESC Ltd. and its authorities still did not take steps to instal the new A.C. electric meter in the room in question, the petitioner concern had no alternative but to move the present writ application on 22nd June, 1993. 'No interim order was, however, passed on the writ application and the matter was directed to be listed for hearing upon affidavits.
5. It appears that an appeal was preferred from the said order, but the learned Appeal Court also rejected the petitioner's application for interim orders.
6. It appears that, thereafter, the matter came up for final hearing before a learned Judge of this Court on 20th January, 1994, when directions were given to the CESC Ltd. and its authorities to take steps for providing a new connection to the petitioner concern, subject to all formalities being complied with.
7. An appeal was preferred against the said order of the learned Single Judge and the Appeal Court
