Judgment : Dt.5.9.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President.

            This is a complaint made by one Rabindra Sharma son of Anandi Sharma, residing at 16/2, Dover Terrace, P.S. & P.O.-Gariahat, Garcha 2^nd Lane, Kolkata-700 019 against (1) The CESC Ltd., Victoria House, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata-700 001, OP No.1, (2) The District Engineer, CESC Ltd., South Regional Office, 6, Mandeville Garden, Kolkata- 700 019, OP No.2 and (3) Lakshmi Devi, of 16/2, Garcha 2^nd Lane, P.S. & P.O.-Gariahat, Kolkata-700 019, praying for a direction upon the respondent O.P. No.3 not to raise any objection at the time of inspection by the CESC and open the door of meter room and a direction upon the OP No.1 to install a separate meter in the name of the Complainant and another direction upon the local police to help CESC if any obstacle comes.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant is a tenant of the OP No.3 and is paying monthly rent of Rs.50/- as per English Calendar before the Rent Controller. Complainant is living as a tenant since fifty years from the time of his grand father. Complainant is residing without electricity. On several occasions Complainant requested the OP No.3 to give opportunity to install the electric meter in the name of the Complainant. But of no use. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP, CESC,  filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. Further, this OP has stated that as per Electricity Act if the Ld. Forum directs OP to give supply to the Complainant after Complainant complies all the formalities. Except this the OP Nos.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of this case. OP No.3did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case is ex-parte against it.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant files affidavit-in-chief to which OP Nos.1 & 2 has stated that they will not file questionnaire. OP Nos.1 & 2 filed affidavit-in-chief. Thereafter, Complainant filed questionnaire to which OP Nos.1 & 2 did not file affidavit-in-reply.

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

            On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint, it appears that Complainant has prayed for a direction upon OP No.3 not to raise any objection to CESC at the time of inspection of the premises for installing the electric meter in favour of the complainant and for installation of a separate meter in the name of the Complainant.

            In this regard, it is clear that Complainant is a tenant and in order to establish his bona fide he has filed copy of the challans showing he used to pay rent to the OP No.3. Further, Complainant has stated that he is living as tenant since the time of his grandfather. Further, he  has filed no document to establish that he is residing there since the time of his grandfather. Complainant has filed Xerox copies of certain documents which show that CESC wrote a letter to the Complainant stating that they were unable to carry out inspection of the premises as the meter room was not accessible. Again, on 17.10.2016, OP No.1 & 2 could not carry on inspection. Complainant has also filed Xerox copy of a letter issued to the OP No.1 & 2. So, the question arises as to why the CESC was not in a position to carry out inspection. Further the question is as to whether Complainant is in occupation in the premises which he has filed, he has not filed any document to establish that he inherited the tenancy right from his forefather as alleged in the complaint petition. Complainant filed another Identity Card to prove his address and also to prove the fact that he inherited the tenancy right but only filing a copy of challan cannot prove the tenancy right of a person who claims that since the time of his grandfather he is tenant. Other materials are required to establish that after the death of his grandfather his father inherited the tenancy right and thereafter he inherited the tenancy right and there were no other heirs after his father. Unless the inheritance of tenancy right is proved this Forum is not in a position to pass any order in favour of the Complainant. It is not mentioned in the complaint as to who was the original tenant and when he was inducted in the premises and whether Complainant being only grandson inherited the tenancy right.

            As such, we do not find any material to allow the prayer of the Complainant.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/608/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest against OP Nos.1 & 2 and ex-parte against OP No.3.