MADHURI MISHRA vs AMNA KHATUN

THE present case is filed by the tenant against the land-lady as well as the Cesco Authorities for disconnection and the subsequent non-supply of electricity power to the tenanted premises of the landlady opposite party No. 1. It is not disputed by the parties that the complainant entered into the premises as a tenant initially on the strength of the agreement from 1st July, 1996. Admittedly the premises is being used by the complainant as a shop complex known as ''Royal Palace'' where the complainant is carrying on business of electronic goods like T.V., Washing Machine and other electrical house-hold appliances. THE grievance of the complainant is that although she has been paying the rent regularly to the landlady as well as also paying the electricity charges on her behalf, the electricity line to the premises was disconnected on 10.5.2000 at the instance of the landlady with an evil purpose of illegally driving her out from the premises. In the written version filed by Mr. Sahoo, the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 the later has denied the claim of the continuance of tenancy by the complainant. It is further averred that the terms of the lease having expired since 30th June, 1999 the matter is in the nature of a civil case and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. No denial is made in regard to the allegation of disconnection of the line. Though the Cesco Authorities received notice on 28.6.2000 they have not chosen to appear nor file the version or submit anything in support of their case inspite of the sufficient time granted by today.

WHILE it is the contention of Mr. Beura the learned Counsel for the complainant that even after the expiry of the initial agreement for 3 years for the tenancy, there has been a second agreement for further continuance of the tenancy for another 3 years but even then the opposite party No. 1 has adopted this method for forcibly evicting the complainant from the premises. Mr. Beura refers to the xeox copy of the application of the opposite party No. 1 addressed to the S.D.O., Electrical requesting to withdraw the line and treat it as surrendered. Mr. D.K. Sahoo, the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 on the other hand strenuously urges firstly, that the present dispute does not come under the preview of the Consumer Protection Act inasmuch as when the period of tenancy has expired and there has been no further agreement for continuance of the tenancy, the case under the Consumer Protection Act would not lie but the same will lie before the Civil Court. Secondly, it is urged that the landlady did not disconnect the electric line of the complainant but it is because of arrear bills outstanding against the complainant for which the Cesco Authorities disconnected the supply. Mr. Sahoo further submits that the complainant first approached the Hon''ble High Court, but withdraw the case as the opposite party appeared and contested the case. We have heard the Counsel at length. We have perused the documents on record and we dispose of the case in the following manner : Admittedly the case is between the landlady and the tenant in respect of the premises in question. Admittedly the complainant occupied the premises initially on the basis of a written agreement for a period of 3 years from 1st July, 1996. The agreement apparently expired on 30th June, 1999 and thereafter no agreement has been signed by the landlady though it is strenuously urged by Mr. Beura that all steps including the purchasing of the stamp paper for the agreement was taken by the landlady to get an agreement signed for a further period of 3 years. In any case, no material has been placed before us that the landlady has signed any agreement to that effect. The written version by the landlady (though preliminary in nature) does not indicate that the complainant has defaulted any payment either the monthly rent or any electricity charges. While it is the case of the complainant that she is continuing as a tenant for another period of 3 years on the basis of the agreement between the two, the case of the opposite party No. 1 is that the tenancy has been determined by an efflux of time. The dispute as contended by the opposite party No. 1 is that the tenancy has been determined. Whether as on today the tenancy has been determined or that the complainant is continuing as a tenant ''holding over'' or she is a tenant ''at sufferance'' is not a matter for decision by the Consumer Forum. Parties are free to take shelter in the appropriate Civil Court in this regard. Contention of Mr. Sahoo is correct in that regard. But in the present case we are of the view that since the complainant is still occupying the premises even after the expiry of the period of 3 years after 30th June, 1999 till date and no material has been brought to our notice that she is not paying the house rent and electricity charges regularly and further there is no material to show that infact she has been given any notice for vacating the premises by the opposite party No. 1 as on today in such circumstances, we cannot hold that the complainant is a trespasser to the premises. Therefore, for the purpose of getting the electricity connection she can, for the purpose of this case be held to be a lawful occupant and there is no reason for the Cesco Authorities to disconnect her line either at the instance of the landlady or at their own instance, unless the complainant is found to be in arrears of electricity dues or she has committed any wrongful act for which she could be said as not entitled to get the power supply to run her business. The letter of the opposite party No. 1 addressed to the S H.O., Cesco to withdraw the supply because she no more requires the same is an unfair act of the landlady. This action of the opposite party No. 1 is not appreciated by us. A tenant could be only evicted from the premises under the due process of law and not otherwise as is done in this case. The disconnection of the power supply at the instance of the opposite party No. 1 by the Cesco Authorities is illegal and arbitrary and hence amounts to deficiency of service by both.

Mr. Beura has drawn our attention to Regulation 4(d) of the Orissa Electricity Supply Rules stated to have been adopted by the Cesco which reads as follows : "2. An intending consumer, who is not the owner of the premises occupied by him shall, if so required by the Board, furnish proof of his being in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond indemnifying the Board, against any clashes arising out of disputes relating to supply of power to the premises."

THE Regulation 4(d) envisages that even a lawful occupant of the premises is entitled to have the supply of electricity power to the premises he or she is occupying. In the present case grievance of the complainant is mainly against the Cesco Authorities since line has been disconnected by them at the instance of the Ian ''lady. This they have done without making any enquiry whatsoever, as to whether the premise is a tenanted premise and if so whether the complainant is a trespasser and has no right to continue in the premises. Nothing has been placed from the side of the Cesco to show that the complainant has committed any act or omission so as to render her liable not to enjoy the electricity power to the premises. Further it is the case of the complainant that after the disconnection was made by the landlady, she took a temporary line to the premises for a period of 15 days, which the Cesco Authorities allowed, but did not extend it for the reasons best known to them. Cesco have not choosen to contest the case inspite of the fact that notice against them has been sufficient. Since, we have already held that for the purpose of the present case the complainant is in lawful occupation of the premises, there is no justification for the Cesco Authorities to disconnect the line nor not to extend the period of the temporary connection subject to any demand for payment of electricity dues which the complainant is bound to pay. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Cesco Authorities to restore power supply independently to the premises in question of the complainant observing all legal formalities, including payment or any arrear dues. We allow this complaint petition but without any costs. We direct the Cesco Authorities to restore power supply independently to the premises in question within a period of seven days from the date of the payment of the admissible dues with arrear, if any by the complainant. No cost. Dr. Arati Mohanty, Member-I agree. Mr. Pramodnath Das, Member-I agree. Complaint allowed.