JUDGMENT :

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.):

1. By this appeal, correctness of the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 15.02.2022 passed in W.P.A. No. 23338 of 2019 (Dbar Code Restro Bar & Club LLP and Another v. CESC Limited and Others) has been questioned by the appellant. This appeal is concerned with the judgement passed by the Single Judge, the Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and after hearing the said writ petition, the Learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the abovementioned writ petition by a judgement dated 15.02.2022.

2. The facts of the case are that the writ petitioners/appellants herein being the lessees of the disputed premises under the private respondent nos. 6 and 7, had filed the said writ petition on the allegation that the lessors/respondent nos. 6 and 7 were disrupting electric supply to the tenanted premises regularly. The appellants herein run a bar and restraunt as well as a club from the said premises and due to such alleged disruptions, they are suffering serious loss of business and goodwill.

3. It was contended by the appellants that they had entered into a lease agreement dated July 19, 2016, but due to the alleged disruptions of electric supply by the lessors, the appellants had to apply for a fresh electric connection in their own name. However, the private respondents and their men and agents restrained the CESC personnels, thereby preventing them from giving such electric connection when they came for inspection for the purpose of giving such new connection in the name of the appellants.

4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the private respondents that the appellants entered into as many as three agreements on July 19, 2016 and not one as indicated by the appellants. The commercial space was to be enjoyed at a lease rent of Rs. 60,000/- according to the lease deed disclosed in the writ petition. The appellants were entitled to enjoy power load capacity of 2 kVA only from one electric meter as per the said deed.

5. According to the second deed entered between the private parties on the same date as the first, it provided for scheduled maintenance, amenities, utilities in respect of the said premises and that the appellants would be entitled to 60 kVA power load capacity to be provided by the lessors making the total rent payable at Rs. 1,90,000/- per month as per the said agreement. For the signboard display, the appellants would pay Rs. 1,20,000/- per month according to the third agreement between the lessors and lessees.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents nos. 6 and 7 further argued that in terms of the first two agreements, the petitioners were already enjoying 62 kVA power load capacity. Moreover, the entire rent of the premises comprised of the composite amount of Rs.3,70,000/- (60,000/- + 1,90,000/- + 1,20,000) and it was contended that the lessee was seeking to modify the terms of the three agreements by obtaining an order from the writ court. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 and 7 that such attempts by the appellants could not be encouraged by permitting them to take a new electric connection at the premises of the private respondents since it would be a gross and unlawful modification of the three subsisting agreements between the private parties.

7. The appellants have based their submissions on the right of a person to get electric supply as mentioned in Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003:

Section 43. (Duty to supply on request): ---(1) 1[Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution] licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply:

Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub-stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning