Judgment dated 01-06-2016
This is a complaint made by one Shri Ashim Nayak against OP No.1 M/s. C.E.S.C. Ltd. OP No.2 District Engineer,M/s. C.E.S.C.Ltd. OP No.3 Shri Subir Roy Chowdhury and OP No.4 Smt .Joyeeta Roy Chowdhury praying for an order directing OP No.1 & 2 to provide separate new connection of electric meter in the tenanted portion of the ground floor at premises No.100 Sreerempore Road, P.O. Garia under P.S. Patuli , an order directing the Officer-in-charge, P.S. Patuli to remain present with his force at the time of installation of electric meter and an order directing all the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- and cost of Rs.20,000/- .
Facts in brief are that Complainant is a tenant of premises. OP No. 1 & 2 are C.E.S.C. Complainant is a tenant of entire ground floor consisting of 3 Bed Rooms, 1 Dining Room, 1 Bathroom, 1 Kitchen and 1 covered Verandah at a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-.A tenancy agreement is filed herewith. Complainant does not have electric meter in his name. Complainant applied for domestic connection and paid Rs.200/- . OP No.2 held inspection on the premises on 28.5.2015. On 1.8.2015 OP No.2, their men went to install new connection but returned. Afterwards OP No.2 informed that they did not get free access to provide new connection. Complainant is a bonafide tenant and for installation of electric meter in his name he filed this complaint.
OP No.3 & 4 filed written version. OP No. 1 & 2 also filed written version.
OP No.3 & 4 has denied all the allegations of the Complainant. Further allegation is that Complainant is not a tenant as per agreement dated 1.11.2000. Complainant was a tenant under Smt. Namita Roy Chowdhury. Complainant enjoyed electric connection since 2000 from the electric meter in the name of Smt. Namita Roy Chowdhury. Complainant did not pay electric bill. Further it is submitted that Complainant with oblique motive intends to get electric connection.
OP 1 & 2 has also filed written version and prayed for dismissal of this complaint.
Decisions with reasons
Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief and has also replied the questionnaire of OP No.3 & 4. OP also filed evidence on affidavit. OP No. 1 & 2 has also filed evidence on affidavit.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
An agreement made on 1st. November, 2000 has been filed to establish that OP is a tenant. This agreement clearly reveals that it expired on 30.11.2004. Further it appears that Xerox copy of the rent receipts have been filed which reveals that Complainant use to pay Rs.2,000/- as rent. However, on perusal of the agreement it appears that Complainant was required to pay Rs.500/- as service tax of which no receipt is forthcoming. Further more on perusal of copy of electric bill filed by OP No. 3 & 4 it appears that the bill of which due date was 11.11.2015 is unpaid and the bill amount is 20,440/- . This bill is in the name of Smt. Namita Roy Chowdhury who is already dead.
Further, on perusal of affidavit-in-chief filed by the Complainant it appears that he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. OP No.1 & 2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint as the bill has remained unpaid. OP No.3 & 4 made objection through their evidence that Complainant did not pay the bill which he enjoyed and for mischief he is trying to get new connection in his name. It also appears that OP is paying Rs.2,000/- as rent which he used to pay when he was inducted as tenant. This reveals the malafide intention of the Complainant. Even law provides that rent has to be proportionately increased every year which has not happened here in respect of Complainant.
All these reveals that Complainant filed this complaint with an ulterior motive and so he is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
CC/17/2015 and the same is dismissed on contest.
