Petitioners/OPs have filed the present revision petition under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ’Act’) against order dated 22.9.2008, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (for short, ’State Commission’). 2. Brief facts are that complainant/respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum against petitioners stating that he had made an application for grant of residential electric connection, whereupon petitioners issued a demand notice for Rs.1,9501- which was deposited by him, but the connection was not released to him. The petitioners, vide their letter informed him that the premises in which he wants to have the electric connection, earlier had an. Electric connection in the name of Gordhan Singh s/o Ladu Singh, which was disconnected due to non payment. However, upon deposit of the arrears of Rs.8,654/-, the connection can be granted. It is further stated that the respondent had purchased the above premises from Smt. Laxmi Devi w/o Shri Gordhan Singh, vide registered sale deed. Therefore, he is not liable to make the payment of the balance amount standing in the name of Sh. Gordhan Singh. The respondent is entitled to the electric connection on the basis of already deposited demand notice amount of Rs.19,501-. Accordingly, respondent filed the complaint for damages and cost. 3. Petitioners filed their reply stating that the premises for which respondent is seeking an electric connection, an earlier connection existed vide khata no.2303/006 and the balance amount payable is Rs.5,737.14 and interest Page 2 of 7 of (R.P. No.470 of 2009) amount of Rs.2,917/-, totaling to Rs.8,654/- which is outstanding. Further, a "demand letter was sent, but the respondent has not deposited the same. Hence, the electric connection has not been issued and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhunjhunu (for short, ’District Forum’) vide order dated 13.6.2008, allowed the complaint and passed the following order; "Therefore, the complaint of the complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act is accepted against the opposite party and opposite party is directed that the electric connection in the said residential premises of the complainant be installed within one month and in case the connection is not given then for delay of every month the opposite party will have to pay Rs.5, 000/- as compensation. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same, vide impugned order. 6. Hence, the present revision petition. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that electric connections are granted by the petitioners in terms of "Terms and Conditions For Supply Of Electricity" which are statutory in nature having been framed in pursuance of the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission in exercise of Page 3 of 7 of (R.P. No.470 of 2009) powers conferred by the sections 43-48, 50-55 and 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ’and with the approval of Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission and provisions of clause 14(6) of the said Terms and Conditions which is relevant for the present case reads as under; "14. Agreement and agreement period (1 ) to (5) x x x (6) where the ownership of premises has changed, a new connection shall be given in the premises only if all arrears and dues in respect of old connection in the premises have been cleared and paid. However in case of auction of an existing industry by RIICO/RFC or by OL appointed by Rajasthan High Court or Debt Recovery Tribunal, new connection shall be released as per policy guidelines of State Govt, and prevailing law." 9. In the present case, respondent has purchased the property and has applied for a new residential connection. As per their record, an electric connection already existed in the said premises which was disconnected due to non- payment of Rs.5,737.14 alongwith interest, amounting to RS.8,654/-. In view of the above, respondent was directed to deposit the said amount and clear the said arrears before the new connection could be granted since there was a change of ownership. 10. Learned counsel for petitioners in support of its contentions has relied upon the following judgments; Page 4 of 7 of (R.P. No.470 of 2009) i) Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. MIs. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauri and others, AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 3835 and ii) BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., AIR 2010 DELHI 14. 11. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that as far as Clause 14(6) relied upon by the counsel for the Petitioners, the same is not applicable to the Consumer Protection Act. It is further contended that petitioners themselves are responsible for not recovering the dues from the previous owner and as such rights of the consumer are not affected by the provisions of Electricity Act. In support, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision passed in "Accounts Officer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others Vs. Anwar AIi, Proprietor, MIs. Pinki Plastic Industries and others, AIR 2008 (NOC) 2258 (NCC). 12. It is the case of respondent that he has purchased the property in question from Smt. Laxmi Devi w/o Shri Gordhan Singh, by a registered sale deed where the electricity connection is to be installed. Whereas, case of Petitioners is that in the premises where respondent wants to have the electric connection, there was earlier an electric connection in the name of Gordhan Singh, which was disconnected due to non-payment of the arrears. 13. As per clause 14(6) as quoted above when the ownership of premises changes then new connection has to be given in the premises only, if arrears and dues in respect of the old connection in the premises have been cleared and Page 5 of 7 of (R.P. No.470 of 2009) paid. It is an admitted fact that certain arrears were due in respect of the old . connection which was in the name of Gordhan Singh. 14. In Haryana State Electricity Board (Supra), the Apex Court has observed; "9. The position therefore can be summarized thus; (i) Electricity arrears do not constitute a charge over the property. Therefore in general law, a transferee of a premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous owner/occupier. (ii) Where the statutory rules or terms and conditions of supply which are statutory in character, authorizes the supplier of electricity, to demand from the purchaser of a property claiming re-connection or fresh connection of electricity, the arrears due by the previous owner/occupier in regard to supply of electricity to such premises, the supplier can recover the arrears from a purchaser. 15. Similarly, in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (Supra), the Apex Court has observed; "For the foregoing reasons, we hold that in terms of clause 2.1 (iv) of the General Conditions of Supply forming part of the Tariff Order dated 23, 2001 if there are electricity dues against the previous owner or occupant of a premises who transfers the premises to a new owner or occupant, the new owner or occupant applying for a fresh electricity connection can be compelled by the distribution company to Page 6 of 7 of (R.P. No.470 of 2009) pay the arrears of electricity dues of the previous owner or occupant and the distribution company can refuse to supply electricity to the premises on account of such non-payment. " 16. Under these circumstances, respondent having purchased the premises where he wants to have a new connection, is bound to pay all the arrears and only thereafter he can get the electricity connection. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable to the present case. 17. Thus, both the fora below were not justified in allowing the complaint of the respondent. Accordingly, we allow the present revision petition and set aside the orders passed by the fora below. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum stand dismissed. 18. No order as to cost. .J (V.B. GUPTA) (PRESIDING MEMBER) .. (REKHA GUPTA) (MEMBER) Sg.