Case No.243/2021   

IN THE MATTER OF

Anurag Varshney S/o Sri Naval Kishor Varshney, Director Sri Shankar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (Satha Sugar Mill Ke Pass Kasimpur Road, at present R/o A-3 Lotus Apartment, Sammad Road,Aligarh(Through: Advocate Mahaveer Singh)

                                                         V/s

1. Chief  Engineer, Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, 33/11 KV Vidhyut Upkendra Quarsi, Ramghat Road, Aligarh
2. Superintend Engineer, Vidhyut Vitran Mandal-First, Lal Diggi , Aligarh   
3. Executive Engineer, Vidhyut Vitran Khand-III Dakshanchal Vidhyut Vintran Nigam Ltd, Lal Diggi, Aligarh 

(Through: Advocate Rekha Verma)

4. Shri Shankar Tala Bhandar(P) Ltd. Prop. Yash Varshney authorized Signatory,Manik Chowk, Aligarh

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint case has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-
2. (a)Ops no. 1,2 and 3 be directed to cancel the notice given by the OP no.3 in respect of electricity connection installed at the premises of the complainant.

(b) Ops no.1,2 and3 be directed not to disconnect the electricity connection.

(c) Any suitable relief which the commission deems fit be granted in favour of the complainant.

(d) cost of litigationbe awarded.

3. The Complainant has stated that he is the director of the firm M/s Sri Sankar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Kasimpur Road, Aligarh. Complainant had taken the premises on rent in the year 2009 from the directors of the Sri Sankar Tala Bhandar. Complainant had obtained electricity connection no.781726754375 in the month December,2010 at the premises to run the said firm and he has paid the electricity bills up to the month December,2021. OP no.3 sent a letter dated 7.12.2021 giving information to permanently disconnect the connection. It was informed on moving application dated 29.11.2021 by Yash Varshney whereby it was informed that the Additional District   Judge/FTC Court no.2 Aligarh passed the order dated 25.11.2021 in Misc Civil Appeal No.44/2019 in which direction has been given to permanently disconnect the connection. Complainant has refuted the permanent disconnection mentioning the entire facts in his letter dated 14.12.2021 sent to Op no.3. Complainant has filed a Suit No. 838/2015 Anurag Varshney & Others V/s Brij Bhusan Varshney & others which is pending in the court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Aligarh wherein  the order dated 4.5.2019 was passed to maintain status quo. The order was challenged in Appeal being Misc Civil Appeal no.44/2019 Brij Bhusan Varshney V/s Anurag Varshney which was allowed on 25.11.2021 by the Addl. District Judge (FTC-2).Complainant stated that in the order dated 25.11.2021, there is nothing regarding disconnection of the electricity connection and the OP no.3 had unnecessarily sent letter dated 7.12.2021 to disconnect the connection which is improper and illegal. The Complainant shall suffer irreparable loss if the electricity connection is disconnected.             
4. Op1, 2 and 3 have filed WS in which it was stated that the complainant had not taken the premises on rent, rather it was taken on the basis of consent letter. The connection was taken by the complainant and electricity bills were paid. Complainant was informed for disconnection on the information   of the court given by Yash Varshney. Complainant has filed a case no. 7726/2021 in the Hon’ble High Court , Allahabad and parties were directed for mediation .
5. Op no.4 has stated in WS that M/s Sri Sankar Tala Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. (OP no.4) is duly registered Company and it had purchased the premises in question. The premises was agriculture land which was got converted for abadi U/s 143 ZALR Act. OP no.4 raised the boundary wall at the premises and stared to carry on its business. Complainant has falsely alleged to be the tenant of the premises on the basis of alleged consent letter given by the director of OP no.4. The OP no. 4 is a company and its board of directors are competent to take decision and consent letter is not the authority to confer any right on any person. Complainant has no right on the basis of alleged consent letter to be the tenant of the premises. The OP company never let out the premises to the complainant and the complainant is not tenant of the premises. Complainant has never paid any amount of rent to the answering OP and any payment through transaction in the bank made by the complainant does not amount to rent as those were made in connection with the business. In the OS no.838/2015 filed by the complainant for permanent injunction the order dated 4.5.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Aligarh to maintain status quo was set aside in Misc. Civil Appeal no.44/2019 by order dated 25.11.2021 passed by Addl. District Judge (FTC-2) Aligarh observing that  the premises was purchased on 31.12.2009 and was converted into abadi on 9.3.2010 which could not be let out except for  some purpose as being agriculture land and consent letter was issued for using the premises without any rent and the rent paid through bank transaction was in connection with the business. The consent letter was not issued by the resolution of the board of directors of the company. The report dated 7.2.2019 submitted by the ADM (E) Aligarh was referred to show the ownership and possession of the OP Company at the premises. The order dated 25.11.2021 passed in  Civil Appeal no.44/2019 was challenged before Hon’ble High Court in case no.7726/2021  wherein parties were directed to maintain status quo by order dated 7.1.2022 which was vacated by order dated 1.5.2023 as being the OS 838/2015 dismissed in default  on 27.9.2022. The report dated 16.12.2022 submitted by ADM(F/R) Aligarh clearly state ownership of the premises in favour of complainant and recommended the release of the electricity connection in favour of the complainant. Op company moved application dated 29.12.2021 to Chief Engineer (Distribution) Aligarh Division to permanently disconnect the electricity connection at the premises  in favour of the complainant against the rules and on 23.12.2022 office memo issued by the Op no.3 to grant connection to the OP company. Complainant is not in lawful possession and occupation of the premises and in view of clause 4.4(a) (i) of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005, complainant was not entitled to get the electricity connection in absence of proof of occupancy. In view of clause 4.4(f) of the code 2005 the electricity connection granted to the complainant on the basis of wrong facts and against the provisions of law is liable to be removed and its meter has already been removed.    
6. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings.  Ops have also filed his affidavit and papers  in support of  their  pleadings
7. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
8. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled for obtaining the electricity connection at the premises? If not so, its effect.
9. (a) Complainant has alleged to be the tenant of the premises on the basis of consent letter executed by the director of the OP company granting permission to the complainant to carry on its business with out payment of any rent. Indisputably, the Op company is duly registered company and the board of directors of the Op company have the authority to take decision to let out the premises. There is no decision of the board of directors and  simply a letter written by the director of the company is not an authority to let out the premises on rent to the complainant. Moreover, the alleged consent letter is not a rent deed because there was no mention of the rate of rent and the period of lease. The alleged consent letter has no value in the eye of law to confer tenancy rights on the complainant company. There is also a contradiction between the pleading of the complainant and alleged consent letter as the complainant has pleaded the rate of rent Rs.10000/ per month whereas the alleged consent letter contains no rate of rent. So far as the question of payment of rent by the complainant is concerned, there is no rent receipt and the rent is said to have been paid through bank transaction which have been controverted as payment in connection with business. Thus the complainant fails to prove the alleged occupancy at the premises as tenant.      

(b) complainant had filed a O S no.838/2015 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Aligarh for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff (complainant in the present complaint case) and the order dated 4.5.2019 was passed to maintain status quo which was set aside bythe order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the Addl. District Judge/FTC-2, Aligarh. It was observed by the Addl. District Judge /FTC-2 Aligarh while setting aside the order dated 4.5.2019 that the premises was purchased on 31.12.2009 by the OP company and it was later on converted into abadi which could not be let out in the year 2009 except for some purpose as being the agriculture land and the consent letter was issued for using the premises without any rent. The alleged payment of rent through bank transactions was in respect of business and no rent receipt was filed. The report dated 7.2.2019 submitted by ADM (E) was also referred to in support of the prima facie ownership of the OP company. The observations made by the Addl. District Judge (FTC-2) Aligarh establishes ownership and possession of the Op company at the premises and denounces the authorized occupancy of the complainant at the premises.

(c) The order dated 25.11.2021passed by the Addl. District Judge /FTC-2, Aligarh in Misc. Civil Appeal no.44/2019 was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court case no. 7726/2021 and the parties were directed to maintain status quo by order dated 7.1.2022 which was vacated by order dated 1.5.2023 on dismissal of OS No. 838/2015 on 27.9.2022. Thus there is no order of any court in favour of the complainant to hold it in possession and occupation of the premises.

(d) There is also report dated 16.12.2022 ADM(FR) Aligarh wherein it is stated that the op company is the owner of the premises and releasing of electricity connection in favour of OP company was recommended. On 23.12.2022 office memo was issued by the OP no.3 granting sanction to release connection in favour of OP company.

(e) There is a provision in clause 4.4(a) (i) of the code 2005 that the application for the new connection shall be filed along with the attested true copies of proof of ownership of the premises in the form of registered sale deed or proof of occupancy such as latest rent paid receipt or valid lease deed. Complainant has no such proof of ownership or occupancy of the premises. The Complainant wrongly alleged itself to be the tenant of the premises and obtained the electricity connection based on wrong facts and against the law. It is provided in clause 4.4 (f) of the code that if any information furnished in application form is found wrong or theenergisationwould be in violation of provisions of law, the licensee shall not sanction the connection. As the connection has been sanctioned and now the connection can be disconnected in view of aforesaid provisions of law.

      9.    The question formulated above is decided against the complainant.

10.   We are of the view that there is no substance in the case and is liable to be dismissed. We hereby dismiss the case. The interim order dated 07.01.2022 passed on application u/s 38(8) of the Act stands vacated. 
11.  A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties. A copy of  judgment be sent to Chief Engineer  for necessary action.
12. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.