Order No.                 .

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has alleged that he is a tenant under landlord Kumaresh Mukherjee by paying monthly rent through Rent Controller the landlord by challan dated 30-08-2013.

          Fact remains complainant has no electric meter in the said room so he prayed for supplying electric connection to the CESC for new meter to the complainant on 13-09-2013 and paid necessary application fees of Rs.200/- on 05-09-2013, thereafter, CESC issued letter to the complainant and informed that inspection will be held on 12-09-2013.  Thereafter, inspection team came when OPs3 to 5 raised objection and CESC could not take any action after that CESC issued a letter to the complainant on 13-09-2013 stating that due to objection raised by OPs 3 to 5 they could not take an y action for inspection.  It is further submitted that the landlord of the premises did not raise any objection for giving electric line and separate meter but only OPs 3 to 5 raised such objection and CESC did not install the same but CESC has power to assert and to take necessary action against such persons OPs 3 to 5 as per provision of Section 163 of Electricity Act, 2003 but OP CESC did not take any action.

          Complainant is an unemployed person and wants to open a book shop.  Complainant applied for a meter but due to such illegal obstruction and objection made by the OPs 3 to 5 complainant failed to open the bookshop and for want of electricity.  But as per provision of law complainant has his right to enjoy electricity and OP also as per law has bound to install such new electric line with the help of police and in the circumstances, for deficiency in service this complaint is filed for relief and compensation.

          Fact remains notices were served upon the OPs but none appeared and submitted any objection even after receipt of the notice for which the case is heard ex parte and after considering the argument of the lawyer of the complainant and other materials.

Decision with Reasons

After thorough study of the complaint and also relying upon the argument as advanced by the Lawyer of the complainant and further considering the material documents the single copy of rent control challan for the month of July, 2013 it is found that complainant deposited Rs.56/- in respect of one shop-room at premises No.5/1, A Madhu Gupta Lane, Kolkata – 700 012 but the most interesting factor is that complainant has failed to produce any rent receipt prior to that to the effect that he was inducted as tenant by Kumaresh Mukherjee and it is settled principle of law that one must have to prove prima facie that he has been inducted by the landlord as tenant but any such document is not filed and single piece of rent control receipt/challan does not prove that he is tenant under the landlord.  Another factor is that landlord is not made party in this case so, in his absence it can be said for the purpose of getting an electric line in unauthorized room tenant has made an attempt, owner is not made party.  Truth is that there is no detail of shop and there is no contract in between Kumaresh Mukherjee and the complainant regarding induction of the tenancy because complainant has stated that he wants to open a book shop but he must have to produce the contract in between him and owner and at the same time there is no description of the alleged room.  So, considering all those facts we are convinced to hold that complainant has prima facie failed to prove his tenancy right in respect of any room of the said premises.

          For the sake of argument if it is accepted that he paid Rs.56/- in respect of one shop-room at premises No. 5/1, A Madhu Gupta Lane, Kolkata – 700 012 in that case complainant must have to show that prior to that he was inducted as a tenant and there was an agreement and another factor is that no trade license is submitted to show that he wants to run a business and moreover entire material before this Forum suggests that this complaint for some purpose to prove his tenancy in a particular room with expectation complainant is trying to grab room of the landlord by force and for which to make it validate he has tried to get electric meter but that is not the legal method of the tenant.

          Another factor is that complainant has tried to say that his owner did not raise any objection if that is the fact complainant may file the no objection as per electricity rules along with his application but that has not been submitted.  So, considering all facts we find that such a complaint should not be entertained when complainant failed to give any material before the electricity authority that Kumaresh Mukherjee gave no objection certificate to the CESC in favour of the complainant.  Complainant also failed to produce any document regarding starting of business and agreement in between the landlord and tenant in respect of particular shop-room and his induction of tenancy and so, under any circumstances, such a hoax complaint must not be entertained but fact remains after studying the complaint we have gathered that there was no deficiency and negligency on the part of the OP but even then the complaint was filed only on the ground that OPs (3 to 5) other tenant raised objection but from the letters issued by the OP there is no such assertion that other tenants raised objection but only OP informed that their authorized personnel were unable to carry out an inspection of the above premises as the meter board room/position was not accessible.       So, it is clear that landlord did not permit anyone to enter in the premises but the allegation that other tenants raised objection is completely false and in view of the above premises we are rest assure and confirmed that it is completely a case filed by the complainant only to substantiate his illegal claim in respect of any particular room of Kumaresh Mukherjee by force and for which such complaint was filed.

          Thus, complaint fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed ex parte on the ground no negligence on the part of the OP is proved and no act of obstruction made by OPs 3 to 5 is also proved.

          However, we direct the CESC Authority to take all such steps and enquiry about the matter whether the complainant is a bona fide tenant of the landlord Kumaresh Mukherjee and whether Kumaresh Mukherjee has submitted any no objection certificate in respect of the complainant’s claim of tenancy about taking of electricity line and at the same time complainant shall have to submit agreement of induction of tenancy in between complainant and Kumaresh Mukherjee along with the application for taking electricity.  If those certificates shall be submitted by the complainant in that case CESC shall have to proceed as per law.