Judgment : Dt.1.7.2016

            This is a complaint made by one Sabita Roy against OPs CESC and one Maya  Roy praying for a direction upon OP No.1 & 2 for installation of new electric meter at the schedule premises in the name of Complainant and direction upon OP No.3 not to disturb the workers of CESC at the time of installation of new meter in the premises and also for cost and other reliefs.

            Facts in brief are that one Santosh Kr. Roy is a tenant in respect of one room, kitchen and verandah at premises No.121/1/1A Monoharpukur Road, P.S. Tollygunge at the monthly rent of Rs.15/- as per English calendar. After the death of Santosh Kumar Roy, Complainant and her two brothers namely Tapan Roy & Arun Roy became monthly tenant under OP No.3. Complainant applied to CESC for a meter in her name. Complainant deposited the amount for that purpose. After compliance of all the formalities CESC men went to install meter. But they were obstructed by OP No.3. OP No.3 is a woman of anti-social nature. Complainant also lodged complaint to the police but nothing happened. So, Complainant filed this case.

            On the basis of above facts, complaint was admitted and notices were served. After this OP No.1 & 2 filed written version jointly and denied allegation made in the complaint. In the written version OP No.1 & 2 have stated that they are ready to provide electricity and install meter if Forum directs.

            OP No.3 did not take any step. So, the case is heard ex-parte against OP No.3.

            Decision with reasons.

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein she has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. OP No.1 & 2 have also filed affidavit-in-chief and narrated the facts they had mentioned in the written version.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs which she has made in the complaint.

            First relief prayed is a direction upon OP No.1 & 2 for installation of new electricity meter.

            In this regard it appears that Complainant has stated that one Santosh Kr. Ray was a bona-fide tenant and she with her two brothers inherited the tenancy. However, it is not mentioned anywhere that she is the daughter-in-law of original tenant and her brothers are sons of Santosh Kr. Roy. Unless this fact is proved their tenancy right becomes illegal. She has filed two Xerox copies of chalans of April,2015 and May, 2015 showing that she deposited Rs.15/- to rent controller. This itself indicates that there is dispute between her and OP No.3 Maya Roy.

            Furthermore, it appears that she pays only Rs.15/- as rent. At the time of argument Ld. Advocate submitted that his client is tenant for about 40 years. So, it is unbelievable that a tenant would pay Rs.15/- as rent and enjoy the premise consisting of one room kitchen and verandah. If at all it is believed, it reflects the conduct of alleged tenant and  in our view since she has failed to establish her tenancy right, no direction can be given to OP No.1 & 2 for installation of new electric meter at the premises.

            So far as prayer No.2 is concerned it relates to direction upon OP No.3 not to disturb OP No.1 & 2 at the time of installation of electricity meter. There is no proof of the fact that OP No.3 ever made any disturbance and so the question of allowing this relief does not arise.

            Since complainant failed to proof that she inherited tenancy right the question of awarding other reliefs do not arise.

            For the sake of argument if it is accepted that she as a daughter  inherited the tenancy right other two brothers also inherited though not proved. And hence she alone cannot be entitled to the relief as prayed for.

            Hence

            O R D E R E D

            CC/41/2015 and the same is dismissed on contest against OP No.1 & 2 and ex-parte against OP No.3.