DATE OF FILING : 16.02.2015.
DATE OF S/R : 26.03.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 17.02.2016.
Sri Mahendra Prasad Gupta,
son of late Ram Pujan Gupta,
residing at 77, Girish Ghosh Road, 1st Floor,
P.S. Bally, District Howrah,
PIN 711202. ……………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. CESC Limited,
Consumer Assistance Cell,
CESC House, Chowringhee Square,
Kolkata 700001.
2. The District Engineer,
CESC Limited, Howrah Regional Office,
433/1, G.T. Road ( N ), Howrah,
PIN 711101.
3. Sri Kamal Priya Bhattacharyay,
4. Sir Nirmal Priya Bhattacharyay,
both sons of late Anath Bandhu Bhattacharyay,
residing at 77, Girish Ghosh Road, 1st Floor, P.S. Bally, now Belur,
District Howrah,
Pin 711202. ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak .
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Mahendra Prasad Gupta, against the CESC Ltd. and three others, praying for direction on the o.p. no. 2, District Engineer, CESC Ltd., to give electric connection to the petitioner at his tenanted premises and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
- The case of the petitioner is that the family of the petitioner is consisted of six members i.e., the petitioner himself, his wife and four daughters. He used to have electric connection in his tenancy but the o.p., landlord, illegally trying to evict the petitioner/ tenant from the tenanted premises and willing to create trouble in the enjoyment of electricity violating the provisions of law and so this petitioner approached the o.p. no. 2 for a fresh electric connection in his rented premises. The o.p. no. 2 sent notice on 01.02.2012 and lastly refused to give him electric connection on 15.1.2015 asking him to produce court order. Now-a-days electric is part and parcel of life. No one can live without electricity. It is learnt that the o.p. nos. 3 & 4 are in collusion with the electricity authority illegally delaying his fresh connection and so he filed this case.
- The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against the complaint and submitted that they have no collusion with o.p. nos. 3 & 4 who are the landlord of the house. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 issued the MASD Bill but the o.p. nos. 3 & 4, landlord, denied to give free access to the meter space and so they are unable to give connection. The petitioner does not come under the C.P. Act, 1986 and so the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
- The o.p. nos. 3 & 4 contested the case by filing a separate written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that the petitioner has no right, title and interest over the property and the petitioner filed T.S. 92 of 2006 before the before the ld. Civil Judge, 1st Court at Howrah, and petitioner can prefer to agitate the said dispute before the Civil Judge. The petitioner is a statutory tenant and is not entitled to get any relief and so the case be dismissed.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.,CESC Ltd. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of his case the petitioner filed affidavit stating that he is a tenant under the o.p. nos. 3 & 4 and he approached the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 for giving him fresh connection in his tenanted premises but the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in collusion with o.p. nos. 3 & 4 neglected to give fresh to him which amounted to deficiency in service and then he filed this case. Besides, the oral evidences in the form of affidavit the petitioner filed no other documents but all the o.ps. accepted the fact that the petitioner is a tenant in the schedule mentioned premises at holding no. 77, GirishGhosh Road, 1st Floor, P.S. Bally. Thus as a premises tenant the petitioner has every right to get electricity. Our Apex Court as well as our National Commission and our HighCourt are of opinion that light and water cannot be denied to an occupier even if he is an illegal occupier and he would get the same unless he is evicted following due course of law. Thus, keeping in mind the submissions of the ld. counsels of both sides as well as keeping in mind the averments of the petitioner as well as written version this Forum finds that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as he substantiated his case before the Forum.
In the result, the application succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 63 of 2015 ( HDF 63 of 2015 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. without costs.
No compensation is awarded as there was obstruction from the o.p. no. 3 & 4 in rendering electricity to the petitioner by the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 who has no deficiency in service.
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 be directed to render fresh electric connection in favour of the petitioner in his rented accommodation within 60 days from the date of this order failing the complainant is at liberty to put the order in execution and the o.p. no. 3 & 4 are directed not to obstruct such rendering of fresh connection and also directed to give free access to the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 while rendering such connection.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
