This is a complaint made by one Rajkumar Sah, Son of Jagadish Sah, 4/3K/215, Sarsuna Satellite Township, P.S.-Sarsuna, Kolkata-700 061 against (1) Mrs. Ila Chanda, wife of Late Kalan Kumar Chanda, OP No.1, (2) Kajol Chanda, OP No.2, (3) Sajol Chanda, OP No.3, both are sons of Late Kalan Kumar Chanda, of 4/3K/215, Sarsuna Satellite Township, P.S.-Sarsuna, Kolkata-700 061, (4) District Engineer (South West Regional Office), CESC Ltd., P-18, Taratala Road, P.S.-Taratala, Kolkata-700 088, OP No.4, (5) The Officer-in-Charge, Sarsuna P.S., Kolkata-700 061,  OP No.5, praying for direction upon the OP No.1, 2 & 3 (a) not to create any objection/obstruction at the time of installation of new meter in the name of the Complainant,  (b) direction upon the OP No.4 to provide work of installation of new electric meter in the name of the Complainant and (c) Direction upon the OP No.5 to restrain OP No.1, 2 & 3 and his men from causing obstruction and disturbances at the time of installation of new electric meter in the name of the Complainant, (d) direction upon the OP No.4 to issue notice under Section 163 of Electricity Act and (e) direction for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and any other relief.

            Facts in briefs are that Complainant is a tenant and lawful possessor of the premises by virtue of its tenancy and the tenancy was executed between Late Kalan Kumar Chanda and Smt. Kusum Sah, Rajkumar Sah on 21.5.2008. After the death of Late Kalan Kumar Chanda, the present legal heirs are the owners of the premises. Complainant used to run his shop peacefully. OP No.1, 2 3 illegally disconnected the electric connection. Complainant informed the Sarsuna P.S. on 5.10.2015. Complainant applied before the CESC for providing  electric connection. Complainant sustained a huge loss from the shop due to disconnection of the electricity and so Complainant filed this complaint.

            OP No.1, 2 & 3 filed written version and denied all the material allegations of the Complaint. Further OP No.1, 2 & 3 has stated that electric meter was in the name of Kajal Chanda. Complainant enjoyed the electricity and did not pay electric bill of Rs.17,420/-. Hence, CESC disconnected the electricity in respect of that electric meter. Xerox copy of the bill is filed. Further, OPs have denied the allegations that they stated that OP paid electric bill properly. So, these OPs have prayed for dismissal of this case.

            OP CESC has also filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. Further, OP CESC has stated that the Complainant applied for separate new connection on website. But, inspection could not be carried out due to strong objection of the landlord. On 10.10.2015 sent a letter to the Complainant and requested him to identify a common place. Further, OP CESC has stated that they are ready to supply electricity provided this Forum passes such order.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed a petition for  treating the  complaint as affidavit-in-chief against which OP No.1, 2 & 3 filed written version against which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply in which he has stated that Kalan Kr. Chanda has given possession of shop room to the Complainant. OP No.1, 2 & 3 filed evidence against which Complainant filed evidence and OP filed reply.

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

            On perusal of the reply of OP No.6 of the questionnaire of OP No.1, 2 & 3, Complainant has stated that he has filed trade license for 2015-16. Further, he has given evasive reply of other questions. Complainant has filed certain rent controller challans showing that he has deposited rent before the rent controller. However, there is no averment in the complaint that there is a dispute over tenancy of Complainant and that is why Complainant was compelled to deposit rent before the rent controller. The allegation of OP No.1, 2 & 3 that their father used to provide electricity to the Complainant from the electric meter which was in the name of OP No.2, Kajal Chanda. But OP intentionally did not pay the electric bill for that meter and which was commercial and so the electricity was disconnected. Copy of the bill has been filed. On perusal of this bill it appears that this is in the name of Kajal Chanda and the bill raised by the CESC is Rs.17316/- and relates to February, 2013. It appears that this bill became the bone of contention between the parties. Furthermore, it appears from the written version of the CESC is that Complainant made an application for electric connection in the premises. But, due to obstruction of OP No.1, 2 & 3 the electric meter could not be installed. As such, it appears that the bone of contention is between Complainant and OP No.1, 2 & 3.  Even if it is accepted that OP No.1, 2 & 3 is a tenant of the premises, it appears that no receipt for payment of rent has been filed. Complainant has talked about a tenancy agreement. But, on record we do not find any tenancy agreement as stated in the complaint petition. Furthermore, there does not appear any justification for paying the rent before the rent controller, since there is no eviction suit pending before any Civil Court. In our view the filing of rent controller’s challan can not establish the tenancy of a person and this Forum does not have jurisdiction to decide as to whether Complainant is a tenant. For making direction upon the CESC for supplying the electricity, this Forum is to examine only that Complainant is in possession of the shop room and he has been deprived unnecessarily for electric connection.

In this regard, it appears that admittedly Complainant used to get electric supply from the meter whose bill he has not paid as alleged by the OP No.1, 2 & 3. In such circumstances, it is clear that  the complainant who made himself liable for such dispute and as such if this Forum directs OP No.3 & 4 to install new electric meter it would be traversity of justice.

            Further, Complainant has not filed any document to establish that he is a bona fide tenant upon the suit premises and by indulging himself in unnecessary dispute he has lost the right of getting electric connection.

            As such, we are of the view that Complainant failed to prove its allegations.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/131/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.