KAMALENDU GHOSH vs Pradip Kumar Das

THIS is an application u/Sec. 17(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

THE petitioner filed this application challenging the order passed by Ld. CDF in CDF Case No. 1818/94 on 17.7.94. The petitioner filed this application on the ground that Ld. CDF ought to dismiss the application of the complainant on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and on the ground of landlord tenant disputes and last but not the least is that Ld. CDF did not allow the time to file show cause and he prayed for setting aside the order and to remand the matter to CDF for final disposal.

The opposite party Pradip Kumar Das appeared and submitted that he filed the complaint before Ld. CDF with two fold prayer the first of all to direct CESC to provide meter to him and secondly to direct landlord to provide electricity as per present arrangement against payment according to the reading of the sub-meter fixed at the tenanted portion on permission given by the landlord. The complainant further submits that he paid the provisional two months electric charge but landlord did not issue the receipt and the landlord refused to accept the last month''s electric charges and disconnected the electric line due to same without notice and he is willing to pay the last month''s electric charge and if necessary to avoid dispute pay three month''s electric charges as pointed out by the landlord but his line should be restored.

WE are to decide whether the order under challenge is liable to set aside or not. From the face of the order it is revealed that the order was passed on the date when this petitioner/ opposite party prayed time to file show cause. This is an interim order but not ex-parte. The Ld. CDF recorded the submission of this opposite party that they have disconnected the electric line of the complainant due to non-payment of the three months'' electric bill and as the opposite party/complainant is ready and willing to pay such dues, Ld. CDF passed the order directing landlord to provide electric line of the complainant on payment of such dues. WE have also found in the ground mentioned in the revision petition that the petitioner argued only this point apart from other points relating to the maintainability. In our opinion the order passed by Ld. CDF is innocent order and is no way prejudicial to the interest of the revision petitioner/landlord. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a social welfare legislation and we must always be conscious in respect of implementation of this Act. The revision petitioner is the landlord and he disconnected the electric line of the complainant who is the tenant to create troubles to him. Apart from this when landlord is accepting service charges he is duty bound to provide such service and the complainant also came with clean hand and he never refused to pay the electric charges; as such we do not think the order dt. 17.7.94 in CDF Case No. 1818/94 is liable to be set aside.

THE revision petitioner may raise the maintainability points before Ld. CDF at the time of final adjudication of the case alongwith other points if any. We, therefore, dispose of this application upholding the order dt. 17.7.94 passed by the Ld. CDF in CDF Case No. 1818/ 94. The Ld. CDF is directed to dispose this matter as early as possible preferable within one month from the communication of this order. We direct the revision petitioner to restore the electric line of the opposite party/ complainant with seven days from the date of passing of the order. The parties will bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.