Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President—This appeal has been filed by the D.E.S.U., the Opposite Party (OP.), against the order of the District Forum No. 2 by which the complaint of the complainant has been accepted and the D.E.S.U. has been directed to restore the electric connection of the complainant within 30 days from the date of the order and to pay him Rs. 1,000/- as damages.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant purchased a house No. A-304 from Smt. Bhupinder Kaur Vide registered deed dated 28 Feb., 1974. The property being lease hold from the President of India, was required to be mutated in the name of the complainant in the records of the Land & Development Officer, Govt. of India. It is alleged that the complainant made an application to Land & Development Officer, Govt. of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘I & DO’) or mutation and the needful was done by him. Later, he applied to the M.C.D. for transferring the house in his name in their records. However, inspite of his best efforts they did not mutate the house in his name till 27th August, 1992.

3. The O.P. raised a bill of Rs. 14,828-34ps. against the complainant regarding the electricity charges for the period from 1986 to 1991. The. bill was raised by the O.P. on flat rate basis as it is alleged, the meter was not working. The complainant brought this fact to the notice of the DESU. Instead of rectifying the bills, they disconnected his electricity in July, 1993. Consequently, he filed a complaint before the District Forum for directing them to restore the electric connection and rectify his bills.

4. The complaint was contested by the O.P. They controverted his allegations and pleaded that the bills had been raised correctly and he was liable to pay the same. It was further pleaded that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint as the house had not been mutated in his name.

5. The District Forum accepted the complaint and granted relief to the complainant as mentioned above. The DESU has come up in appeal against the said order to the Commission.

6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant/respondent has no locus standi to file the complaint as property had not been mutated in his name. We have duly considered the argument but regret our inability to accept the same. The complainant became owner of the property as soon as the sale deed was registered in his name. The records of the property are maintained by the M.C.D. for recovery of the taxes. These are not records of title of the owners. The complainant after registration of the sale deed in his favour, became the owner of the property. Therefore, he had locus standi to institute the complaint. The contention of Shri N.K. Jha is therefore, rejected.

7. Now we advert to the question; what amount the Opposite Party is entitled to recover from the complainant-respondent. It has been held by the Delhi High Court in H.D. Shouri v. M.C.D., (CW No. 2004 of 1983 decided on 31.3.87, that electricity charges can be recovered for a maximum period of six months only and that too after following the procedure laid down under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. This was followed by the Delhi High Court in Common Cause and Ors. v. Delhi Municipal Corpn. and Ors. 32 (1987) Delhi Law Times 27. Taking into consideration the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act and the observations in the above cases the DESU should rectify the bills and serve them on the respondent for payment.

8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we affirm the view of the District Forum that the act of disconnection of the electric supply of the complainant-respondent cannot be justified and the complainant is entitled to restoration of the electric connection. Rs. 1,000/- granted as damages and costs of litigation to the complainant-respondent is also justified. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with costs. Costs Rs. 1,000/-.

Appeal