JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The petitioner Suraj Moulders Private Limited is a lessee under respondent no.5 Machino Transport Private Limited in respect of the disputed property by virtue of an agreement of lease dated February 24, 2018. In the lease deed it was, inter alia, provided that electricity up to 50 KW shall be supplied/provided from the transformer installed at the premises in the name of respondent no.6 and the lessee/petitioner shall pay all electricity charges for energy consumed by the lessee and proportionate transformer loss as payable to respondent no.6 according to the reading in an exclusive sub-meter at the disputed premises.

2. Subsequently, on September 29, 2022 a copy of a notice purportedly dated September 20, 2022 was sent on behalf of the respondent no.6 to the petitioner, addressed also to the other tenants at the property, where it was alleged that the tenants, including the petitioner, were enjoying supply of electricity from the connection of respondent no.6 and never tried to obtain separate electricity connection from CESC Limited from their respective consumptions. It was further mentioned that such supply was a good gesture of the respondent no.6 just to support the tenants to “grow in their respective businesses”. It was indicated that the respondent no.6 was planning to have future new projects at the premises which would otherwise increase the electricity consumption of the said respondent; consequently, there would be possibilities of explosion in the transformer and other hazardous activities because the transformer would not be able to bear the pressure of the heavy consumption of electricity both by respondent no.6 and the tenants. On such ground, the respondent no.6 expressed its inability, through its advocate’s letter, to supply electricity at the premises of the tenants from its own connection any further and advised the tenants, including the petitioner, to apply before the CESC Limited for separate connection at their respective premises for supply of electricity. Such exercise was directed to be completed within Ten (10) days within receipt of the notice. In default, the respondent no.6 threatened disconnection of the supply of electricity at the premises of the said tenants.

3. The petitioner acted accordingly and, upon due payment, took a new connection on November 29, 2022. The respondent no.6, on the other hand, disconnected the supply of electricity to the petitioner’s portion on November 22, 2022.

4. However, again on December 14, 2022 respondent no.6 gave a notice to the petitioner and the other tenants citing a “judicial order” and asked the tenants to stop drawing electricity from any other meter and/or parallel connection, particularly the one lying in the name of the present writ petitioner, so as to enable respondent no.6 to supply electricity in alleged compliance of the order dated December 2, 2022 passed in a civil revision between the respondent nos.5 and 6.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, in pursuance of such notice, the CESC Limited issued a notice on January 3, 2023 to the petitioner, threatening to depute its personnel on January 9, 2023 at 10 am to 12 noon to de-energize the supply of the new meter in the name of the petitioner. Allegedly, the ground for such threatened action was the order passed in the Civil Revision bearing CO No.3585 of 2022 between the respondent nos.5 and 6. It was indicated that reenergizing the same would be subject to further orders of the High Court.

6. Challenging the said notice, the present petition has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent no.6 is debarred by Estoppel from resiling from its previous position, directing the petitioner to take a new electricity connection in its own name and to disconnect the supply from respondent no. 6. It is contended that the petitioner as well as the respondent no.6 acted on the lease deed, whereby the respondent no.6 was d