JUDGMENT :

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) :

1. The writ petition has been filed by a partnership firm by the name of M/s. R.N. Roy and Bros. represented by one of its partners, namely Tulsi Bag.

2. It is alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner has been running a business at the disputed property and has produced photocopy of a Certificate of Enlistment issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and two rent receipts. In its reply, the petitioner has also annexed certain other documents, the originals of which are produced at the time of hearing for perusal of court. According to the petitioner, the partnership firm has two partners, Tulsi Bag and one Krisanu/Krishanu Bag. In reply, the petitioner has annexed a licence granted by the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, a consolidated electricity bill, receipt for a Certificate of Enlistment, a deed of partnership dated August 31, 2022, etc. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner is in settled possession of the property and is entitled to electricity supply to the premises. However, due to resistance by the private respondent no.3/landlord, the CESC Limited could not hold an inspection for the purpose of ascertaining the feasibility of giving such connection to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court reported at AIR 2011 Cal 64 [Abimanyu Mazumdar Vs. The Superintending Engineer and another]. The Full Bench held therein, inter alia, that an actual occupier in settled possession of the property, irrespective of whether he is a lawful occupier or not, is entitled to electricity supply.

4. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the private respondent contends that the private respondent is an executor of a Will of the original owner.

5. Learned senior counsel further submits that in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Abimanyu Mazumdar (supra), the yardsticks were stipulated by the Full Bench for ascertaining whether a person was in settled possession of a property.

6. It is contended that a trespasser, in order to be in “settled possession”, must be in possession extending over a sufficiently long period of time and acquiesced to by the true owner. Merely stray or even intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner.

7. It is further argued that the Full Bench held that the “settled possession” must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser.

8. The learned Senior Advocate submits that the petitioner Tulsi Bag, claiming himself to be a partner of the firm, has failed to establish that he has been in occupation of the property continuously and to the knowledge of the true owner.

9. By placing reliance on a supplementary affidavit, filed with leave of Court, it is submitted that the documents annexed to the same go on to indicate that the purported Certificate of Enlistment was issued in the name of the partnership firm upon production of certain rent receipts which themselves do not prove the petitioner’s possession in respect of the property.

10. The learned Senior Advocate places reliance on the partnership deed produced by the petitioner to show that the same was entered into only in the year 2022 and, as such, the much earlier rent receipts annexed to the writ petition could not prove the possession of the said partnership firm, since those were issued before the formation of the partnership.

11. In the first rent receipt annexed at page 13 of the writ petition, the signature of the private respondent purportedly appears. It is of March 2, 2015 and is a kuchcha receipt issued in favour of one “Ram Nirikshman Roy and Brothers” in respect of the disputed property. However, as per the partnership deed, the said firm did not come into existence prior to the year 2022.

12. It is further argued that the second rent receipt (Annexure P2 to the writ petition) was also iss