GUPTESWAR NATH MISRA vs DULESWARI DEVI

THIS appeal is against an order dt. 14.10.93 passed by the Calcutta District Forum in a Complaint case filed before the said forum by the respondents. Before the Forum the respondents-complainant alleged that meter No. 1161802, Consumer No. 5405506001, originally belonged to one Brijnandan Ram, the predecessor of the complainant. After his death, the arrear electric bills could not be paid by the complainants and as a result the electric line was disconnected. The present appellant was licensee under the respondents. It was alleged that the appellant applied for electric connection and the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation illegally allowed his prayer. The complainant, therefore, prayed for cancellation of the illegal transfer of the meter in the name of the present appellant and also prayed for compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. The Learned District Forum on a consideration of the whole case found that although the present appellant was an occupier in the relevant premises, he was only a licensee as he could not prove his tenancy. In the circumstances, the Forum directed to have the transfer in the name of the present appellant cancelled and to restore the supply to the complainants.

FROM the evidence, it is found that the present appellant is inoccupation of the premises in question. The complainants'' case was that he was a licensee and that his license was revoked. It appears from the documents filed by the parties that there were civil litigations between the parties and that there was once a temporary injunction also in favour of the appellant. The case in connection with which the injunction was issued was ultimately dismissed. The question that requires determination is if the appellant is entitled to retain the electric connection or whether it should be transferred to the respondents as ordered by the Calcutta District Forum. DECISION The only point on which the Calcutta District Forum has based its decision is that the present appellant though an occupier is a licensee but not a tenant. The question is if in such circumstances, he is to retain the connection which has already been granted by the C.E.S.C. Ltd.

There is no doubt that a tenant is entitled to get electric supply from a licensee in his own right inspite of the opposition of the landlord. Under Sub-section (2) of Sec. 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, a licensee is authorised to issue supply of electric energy to an owner or occupier with their consent. In the instant case, the appellant is admittedly a licensee and he came upon the land with the consent of the landlord. Although the Landlord now claims that his licence has been cancelled subsequently, it cannot be held that he is a rank trespasser on the land.

UNDER Section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 the licensee is bound to supply energy to every person within the area of supply. Admittedly, in this case the old consumer was in arrearof electric charges and he did not pay the arrears. The Electric Supply Co. agreed to supply the energy to the appellant who applied for the same. We do not see that the action of the Electric Supply Co. in this regard was wrong. If the respondents want to have a re-connection, they should apply to the Electric Co. for a new meter according to law. The claim of the respondents-complainants in the Lower Court that they paid up the arrear bills is not accepted as it has been proved. The Learned Lawyer for the respondent submits that the C.E.S.C. might allow a new connection to the appellant, but in no circumstances the meter of the previous consumer could be transferred to him. From the correspondence No. M(C): 7548 dated 3.12.91 filed before the C.D.F. It appears that the C.E.S.C. gave new connection to the appellant after compliance of the statutory formalities including payment of fresh security deposit When fresh security deposit has been accepted, the CESC is bound to supply the connection. Under the Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 the licensee may require the consumer to give him security for the price of a meter and enter into an agreement for them hire thereof. So the consumer''s lien to the hired meter will depend on the terms of the agreement entered into between him and the licensee. This agreement has not been produced by any party. If in terms of the agreement the meter once hired by a consumer cannot be transferred to a new consumer without the consent of the previous consumer the C.E.S.C. shall provide the appellant with a new meter. It should, however, be remembered that the appellant as the hirer of a new meter is in any case entitled to a meter. Subject to the observations made above, this appeal succeeds. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order dated 14.10.93 passed in C.D.F. Case No. 98/93 is hereby set aside and the complaint filed before the said Forum is dismissed. There will be no order for costs either in the lower Court or in this appeal. Appeal allowed.