DILIP BASAK vs BISWANATH BASAK

THIS appeal is against an order of dismissal passed by the Calcutta District Forum in a consumer case filed by the appellant-complainant for restoration of water in a tenanted premises. The complainant claimed to be a tenant under one Ashok Nayak who sold the premises to three different persons. It was alleged that prior to the transfer the complainant was enjoying water under the landlord but after the transfer the water supply stopped by the new landlords with a view to harassing the tenant. The opposite parties contention was that the opposite parties 2 and 3 had purchased different portions of the premises in question by two separate deeds and that the tenancy of the complainant fell in the portion of opposite party No. 2 (respondent No. 2 in this appeal). The complainant was, therefore, not entitled to any water from the said opposite party. It was also contended that before the sale of the premises the complainant was enjoying water connection of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation which was situated in the vicinity of his tenanted portion.

THE District Forum had issued a Commission to appreciate the present position of water supply of the premises, but ultimately dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was a landlord-tenant dispute not adjudicable by a Consumer Court. On a perusal of the record and after hearing the parties it appears that the decision of the District Forum is a correct one. Strictly speaking it is not a consumer dispute. The relevant deeds on the basis of which the premises were sold to different persons were not produced. Neither has any evidence been adduced by any of the parties in support of their respective cases. It is not understood what, if any, was the arrangement for water supply to the respective purchasers. The State Commission in such circumstances is unable to grant the relief sought for by the complainant. We also fail to understand why a Commission was at all held when the lower Court was of the view that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the case. The complainant was ill advised to file the complaint before a Consumer Forum.

Under the general law, if any mischief is caused to a tenant by diminishing or stopping the supply of water it is punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Besides, a tenant may also approach a Rent Controller''s Court for redressal of his grievances regarding stoppage of supply. We, however, feel that if the premises in question have not been partitioned by metes and bounds and if the same was sold with the existing tenants, the arrangement of water supply hitherto in vogue must not be disturbed as water is a most essential commodity in a human life.

WITH the above observations we dismiss this appeal. There will be no order for costs. Appeal dismissed.