( 1 ) ). These appeals are directed against common judgment and order dated 4th october, 2001 of the learned Single. judge allowing Special Civil Application nos. 4280 to 4294 of 2001 by which, the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the common order dated 25th January, 2001 and another order dated 19th March. 2001 passed by the Deputy Collector. Nadiad under Section 23-A of the Bombay Rents, hotel and Lodging House Rules Control act, 1947 [for short "bombay Rent Act"] permitting the appellants to get electricity supply in the premises occupied by the appellants and belonging to the respondents.

( 2 ) ). The facts leading to filing of these appeals are as under :2. 1 The appellants made applications before the Collector under Section 23-A of the Bombay Rent Act staling that the appellants are tenants and occupants of the properties situated at Dakor Taluka thasara being Municipal properties nos. 596, 591, 600, 589, 600/2. 594, 599. 593, 592, 598. 597/1 and 509. The appellants are residing in the above premises for the last more than 60 years. According to the appellants, the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 contended before the Collector that the respondents have not permitted the appellants to take the essential services like electricity supply, though demanded several times and though the appellants are desirous of obtaining such electric connection from respondent Gujarat electricity Board [tor short "g. E. B. "] at their own costs individually. However, only on the ground that the respondents were not giving consent required from the owners of the premises under the Indian Electricity act, the appellants were not getting electricity supply. By the aforesaid orders dated 25th January and 19th March. 2001, the Deputy Collector. Nadiad granted the applications and permitted the appellants to obtain electric supply from the G. E. B. at their own costs and directed the G. E. B. to provide electricity connection in the land bearing Survey No. 201 and 203 of Nani bhagol, Dakor in the above numbered premises by proceeding on the deemed permission of the owners as provided in section 23-A of the Bombay Rent Act. 2. 2 Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents herein filed Civil Revision application No. 16 of 2001 which came to be dismissed by the learned Asst. Judge. Kheda. 2. 3 The respondents, therefore, filed special Civil Application No. 4280 of 2001 - along with cognate matters before this court, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment under challenge whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the orders of the Deputy collector as confirmed by the learned Asst. Judge on the ground that there was nothing on record to show that there was priina facie case to show that the appellants herein are tenants of the suit land in dispute and if. they are trespassers, they cannot obtain electricity connection. It is also observed by the learned Single Judge that in case, the respondents [appellants herein | are not in lawful possession and if suit is pending centering around the dispute the occupants cannot get benefit under Section 23-A of the Act. It is the said judgment which is challenged before us in these Letters Patent appeals.

( 3 ) MR. Murali Devnani. learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that when the appellants had gone with the specific case before the Deputy Collector under section 23-A of the Bombay Rent Act that the appellants are tenants of (the respective premises and the Deputy Collector as well s as the learned Asst. Judge have accepted the appellants case, the learned Single judge ought not to have interfered with concurrent orders passed by the authority and the Court below, when the said orders o did not suffer from any jurisdictional error whatsoever. Strong reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Chainar Rantjibhai khimabhai v. Mirza Murmahmmadbhai amirbhai and another, 2000 [3] GLR 2658 laying down that for granting application under Section 23