This is a complaint made by one Binay Chowdhury, S/o Lt. Gopal Chowdhury against CESC, South-West Regional Office, Pradip Kumar Mukherjee and Murari Mohan Mukherjee, praying for a decree directing the OP No. 1 to install new electric meter in his name at the schedule property and also to pay compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/-, respectively.

Facts in brief are that the Complainant runs his business from the schedule property/shop room situated at 4, Santosh Ray Road, Sakher Bazar, P.O. Barisha, Kolkata – 700 008.  Complainant applied for electric connection at his business place before the OP No. 1.  In turn, the OP No. 1 issued a letter expressing its desire to cause inspection of the site in order to evaluate the feasibility of providing service connection overthere, but till date nothing materialized.

It is also stated that father of the Complainant was the original tenant under the OP No. 3, who was the owner of the suit premises and an agreement was executed in this regard on 16-05-2001 and at that time, electric connection used to be provided by the owner.  But, after the death of Complainant’s father on 27-06-2014, despite receiving rent from the Complainant, the said connection was disconnected by the OP No. 3.  It is also alleged that the OP No. 3 neglected to issue rent receipts and instead filed an eviction suit against the Complainant before the Court of the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) at Alipore.  So, finding no other alternative, the Complainant made an application before the OP No. 1 for taking electric connection, but to no avail.  Hence, this case.

OP, CESC Ltd., on notice, appeared and contested the case by filing WV.  By such WV, the OP No. 1 denied all the allegations and submitted that if this Forum passes any such order, it is ready to install new electric meter and provide service connection to the Complainant.

Decision with reasons

Both the Complainant and the OP No. 1 filed Affidavit-in-Chief, to which the Complainant filed questionnaire. 

Moot point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

First prayer of the Complainant is for a direction upon the OP No. 1 to install new electric meter in his name at the said property. 

On perusal of the record, it appears that photocopy of one tenancy agreement has been filed, where in paragraph 8, it has been clearly mentioned that the rent of the shop room would be increased @ 15% in every 3 years.  Significantly, this agreement was entered into in between the concerned parties way back in the year 2001, but surprisingly, no rent receipt is filed to establish that the Complainant was the tenant or that, after the death of his father, he stepped into his shoes.  If Complainant’s father was the tenant and the agreement of tenancy was clear, then rent receipt must have been issued.  However, the Complainant has not filed any rent receipt to establish the bona fide of his tenancy right  or that he inherited the tenancy right from his father.  Most importantly, there is no document forthcoming before us that only the Complainant inherited the tenancy right after the death of his father.  This factor assumes significance as admittedly, the Complainant happens to be the eldest son of his father. 

In the light of our aforesaid findings, we are of view that the Complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for, including compensation and litigation cost.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that RBT/CC/79/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP No. 1 and ex parte against other OPs.  No order as to costs.