Order No. 16 dated : 10-11-2010
The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by Shri Ram Nath Sah against o.ps. for non-availability of separate electric connection from CESC Ltd. due to the non cooperation of the o.p. nos.1 and 2.
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant resides in a rented room at 34A, Rupchand Mukherjee Lane, P.S. Bhawanipur, Kolkata-25. The rent of the premises is at present is Rs.136/- p.m.
Previously, Shri Panchu Gopal Das a Shebait of ‘Sitalamata’ made a Debattas Deed of his property measuring more or less 2 cottas including a pacca house in the aforesaid premises in favour of ‘Sitalamata’. As per settlement, after the death of Shri Das his wife Smt. Abhilashi Dasi will reside in a portion of the house and will maintain the worship of Sitalamata by way of letting rest portion on rental basis to some other persons. After the death of both of them their religious minded ancestors will take part as ‘Ssebait’. Chronologically Sri Raju Das, S/o Late Tulshicharan Das and Smt. Pratima Das w/o Late Tulshicharan Das are the ‘warison’ of the property as Ssebait.
Shri Tulshi Charan Das, grandson of Panchugopal Das and a Ssebait let one room alongwith a covered verandah on rental basis to Baran Sah, deceased father of the complainant. After the death of Baran Sah and his wife, Sri Debnandan Sah and Shri Ram Nath Sah have been residing in the same room.
The legal heirs of late Baran Sah affirmed that they have no objection if tenancy right is devolved upon Shri Baran Sah and Shri Ram Nath Sah in place of his deceased father, who died in March, 2006.
It was amicably settled between the landlord / Shebait and the tenant that until and unless new electric connection is obtained the o.p. nos.1 and 2 will supply two points, one for light and the other for a fan from their own electric meter on payment of Rs.100/- p.m. for the two points. The system is still continuing.
Problem arose when in 2009 the complainant wanted to have a separate electric meter in his name. The o.p. nos.1 and 2 did not agree to sign on the prescribed form of CESC giving their consent.
The complainant filed application to the CESC Ltd. for separate connection without the ‘no-objection’ from the landlord and the o.p. no.-3 agreed to provide separate meter subject to payment of security deposit and service charge and inspection was made. Meanwhile o.p. no.2 sent a letter on 11.4.09 informing their objections to the installation of a new meter. The o.p. no.3 could not proceed further and sought the remarks of the complainant on the objection raised. The o.p. no.3 thereafter did not accept the service charge and security deposit.
Finding no other alternative the complainant has filed the instant petition with a prayer for direction upon the o.ps. concerned towards;
- installation of separate meter in the said premises by o.p. no.3,
- restraining the o.p. nos.1 and 2 and their men or agents from creating any obstruction at the time of installation of the meter in question,
- passing any other order as the forum may deem fit and proper.
Decision with reasons:
The case has been contested by the o.p. nos.1and 2 and o.p. no.3 has not appeared.
We have perused the evidences, BNAs and other documents submitted by the contesting parties and have heard the submission of the counsel/authorized representative of the parties.
The problem arises out of the deterioration of landlord-tenant relationship. The o.p. nos.1 and 2 do not want to recognize the complainant as their tenant and they are of the apprehension that the installation of a separate meter will facilitate the complainant to establish his tenancy right firmly.
Whether a tenant who hires the services of landlord on recurring payment terms i.e. in one sense on a deferred payment system is a consumer in any shape or manner in relation to landlord is matter of adjudication. We are not inclined to place argument on this issue but rather prefer to examine the matter in the light of Section 2 and 3 of the C.P. Act.
The definition of ‘tenant’ in the Premises Tenancy Act, 1987 as amended states as follows;
“2(g) ‘tenant’ means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is or, but for a special contract, would be payable, and includes any person continuing in possession after termination of his tenancy and, in the event of death of any tenant, also includes, for a period not exceeding five years from the date of death of such tenant or from the date of coming into force of this Act. whichever is later, his spouse, son, daughter, parent and widow of his predeceased son, who were ordinarily living with the tenant upto the date of death of the tenant as the members of his family and were dependant on him and who do not own or occupy any residential premises, and in respect of premises let out for non-residential purpose, his spouse, son, daughter and parent who were ordinarily living with the tenant upto the date of death as members of his family and were dependant on him or a person authorized by the tenant who is in possession of such premises, but shall not include any person against whom any decree or order of eviction has been made by a court of competent jurisdiction; ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. .
Provided further that the son, daughter, parent or the widow of the predeceased son of the tenant who was ordinarily residing with the tenant in the said premises upto the date of death of the tenant as member of he family and was dependant on him and who does not own or occupy any residential premises, shall have alright of preference for tenancy in a fresh agreement in respect of such premises on the condition of payment of fair rent. This provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to premises let out for non-residential purpose”.
In this case the complainant is the son of the tenant who had been residing with his father in the premises for a long time and has been at present in occupation of the room let out on rent. The tenant dies in 2006 and the landlords / shebaits still issue rent receipts in the name of deceased Baran Sau. The receipts are in record. The complainant has been paying rent regularly though receipts are in the name of his father.
All the legal heirs of late Baran Sau have authorized, on affidavit, the complainant and one of his brothers to live in the premises in question on payment of rent.
The shebaits / landlords may have always the liberty to file eviction suit before the concerned Rent Controller/Civil Judge if they prefer but so long as the eviction is not in force as per law the complainant is entitled to have separate meter for his electric consumption and the landlord and shebaits cannot make any hindrance to the installation of the meter by the CESC.
On the other hand, the complainant who is definitely a consumer to o.p. no.3, the service provider duly applied for his separate meter and o.p. no.3 agreed to give separate connection. The o.p. no.3 has legal cell. Before restraining themselves from giving separate connection the o.p. no.3 should have obtained legal opinion from their law cell and if green signal was obtained they should have proceeded to install separate meter for the complainant by taking police assistance. The complainant cannot suffer for want of electricity on the sweet-will of the landlords / shebaits. In their w/v of o.p. nos.1 and 2 declared that they are dismantling the existing electric connection to the complainant.
There is thus a deficiency of service on the part of o.p. no.3 and also the actions of o.p. nos.1 and 2 are contrary to law in relation to their service. The complainant is definitely entitled to get reliefs as prayed for.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the petition of the complainant is allowed on contest against o.p. nos.1 and 2 with costs and ex parte without cost against o.p. no.3.
The o.p. no.3 is directed to arrange for installation of separate meter for the portion occupied by the complainant at premises no.34A, Rupchand Mukherjee Lane, P.S. Bhawanipur, Kolkata-25 within 45 days from the date of communication of this order with police help, if necessary, on receipt of requisite charges from the complainant.
The o.p. nos.1 and 2 are directed not make any hindrance or use their agent or men in the way of installation of separate electric meter for the complainant and also earmark suitable place for placement of the new meter within the premises.
The o.p. nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay a token compensation of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) only each tom the complainant for his mental agony and harassment and a litigation cost of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) only to the complainant within the above stipulated period, failing which this amount of Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred) only will carry a penalty of Rs. 20/- (Rupees twenty) only per day till realization
The o.p. nos.1 and 2 will however have the liberty to adjust the amount of compensation and the litigation cost from the future monthly rent/existing electricity charges on submission of a written understanding to the complainant.
The complainant is also directed to pay the requisite charges of the CESC Ltd. for the installation of the meter within a fortnight from the communication of this order.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees.
