Honble MADAN, J.–Shorn in details the facts giving rise to this second appeal are that Sajjan Raj Surana (plaintiff appellant) instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction with the averments inter alia that he has been practicing advocate not only in the subordinate courts but also before this Court; he had taken electric connection from erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) (now substituted as Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Jaipur) bearing Account No. 28A/112-4 Zone III for his rented premises in a residential building known as Rahim Manzil, M.I. Road Jaipur, where his office cum chamber is established. His case in the plaint was that being an advocate by his profession he is not indulged in any commercial activities to the suit premises but the defendant (RSEB) charged for electric connection to his chamber as a commercial establishment whereas at that time, domestic charges was 59P. as against commercial one at Rs. 1.05, per unit.

(2). In written statement, the defendant (RSEB) had a case that the suit premises has been situated in a Rahim manzil which was in a commercial area, inasmuch as according to application dt.26.6.87 the plaintiff applied for electricity supply under a non-domestic service category, therefore, even he on demand also deposited Rs. 156/- on 19.8.1987 for release of such NDS electric connection and accordingly the plaintiff was being charged as a non domestic service customer of the RSEB, which he continued to pay since first bill November, 1987.

(3). In replica the plaintiff averred that the portion of Rahim manzil where his chamber is situated has been a residential area where many of people have been residing as tenants for their residences and no commercial activities have been performed not only by them but also by him, and that apart, initial bill had been charged as a domestic customer but subsequently changed to commercial one without any prior notice or intimation to him, and that being so, he had been paying the electricity bills under protest.

(4). Further in reply to the replica of the plaintiff, the defendant (RSEB) reiterated that right from the inception the electricity connection was applied for by the plaintiff, he did so for his office and not for domestic purpose inasmuch as the Rahim Manzil where the suit premises has been situated did consist of commercial establishments including that of the plaintiffs, for which a list of such commercial establishments had also been appended to the reply by the defendant, and further that without any protest the plaintiff did deposit demand money for electricity connection as a non domestic service customer. The defendant in reply to the replica denied the plaintiffs averments as to the bills having been deposited under protest right from the first bill.

(5). On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, two issues including of relief were framed, namely whether advocates chamber of the plaintiff situated in residential building Rahim Manzil (suit premises) could be termed as a commercial establishment and what is its effect? The plaintiff examined himself and produced three more witnesses in support of his case whereas the defendant (RSEB) examined six witnesses. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 2, Jaipur City Jaipur by his judgment & decree dt. 1.11.1995 decreed the plaintiffs suit issuing permanent injunction directing the defendant RSEB to charge the plaintiff as a domestic customer on his electricity connection to the suit premises. Against it, the defendant (RSEB) preferred first appeal which came to be decided by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City Jaipur who by a judgment dt. 6.10.1997 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence this second appeal which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law as proposed by the plaintiff appellant-

1) Whether advocates chamber or office situated in a residential building which is not being used as commercial office can b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document