RABI GOBINDA GHOSH vs Gita Sengupta

COMPLAINANT/Appellant made out the case that he is an occupier in respect of a shop room at premises No. 74, Mahatma Gandhi Raod, Calcutta-9. It is alleged by the complainant/appellant that he was a tenant under erstwhile landlord, Chandrani Seth who sold in the year 1984 the entire premises to Smt. Gita Sengupta, the respondent No. 1 in the present appeal who was tenant of the building. It is further alleged that the appellant is a tenant occupier in respect of shop room since last 15 years and he had been enjoying electricity from the meter of Kiran Chandra Chakraborty of Kamal Studio in the same premises at No. 74, M.G. Road, Calcutta-9. It is the contention of the complainant/appellant that the disconnection of the supply line from the shop room of the complainant/appellant by the respondent No. 1 is a most illegal action on her part, although the said meter had been used by Kiran Chandra Chakraborty and the appellant for last 15 years and there was no default in payment of the electricity charge and in the said circumstances disconnection and removal of the meter standing in the name of Kiran Chandra Chakraborty at the instance of the present Landlady, the respondent No. 1 is illegal and high handed, as a result of which the business of the complainant/appellant is being hampered to great extent due to want of electricity and he has been incurring heavy loss regularly as he is not in a position to run his day to day business peacefully and smoothly. In the aforesaid circumstances the complainant/appellant prayed for direction upon the respondent No. 2 for installation of new electric connection in his shop room and in the meantime to direct the respondent No. 1 to restore electric line to the shop room of the complainant/appellant.

THE main contention of the Opposite Party/Respondent No. 1 is that the complainant/appellant has filed a civil suit before the City Civil Court at Calcutta for declaration and injunction wherein the petition for injunction filed by the complainant/appellant has been rejected by the Learned Judge 12th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta. It is alleged by the respondent No. 1 that the appellant is not a tenant and is a trespasser in the shop room at premises No. 74, M.G. Road, Calcutta-9. It is further contended that the dispute of Landlord and Tenant cannot be entertained before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It is again contended that as the Civil Suit is pending on the selfsame cause of action, the appellant cannot file this complaint proceeding before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the subject matter of dispute is purely of civil nature and cannot be entertained before the Forum. So the order passed by the Learned C.D.F. is legal and valid.THE respondent No. 1 submitted for dismissal of appeal with exemplary cost. DECISION Having heard the Learned Counsel of both the parties and perused the materials on record we are convinced that the appellant had been running his shop since last 15 years. So he is admittedly the occupier in respect of shop room at premises No. 74 M.G. Road, Calcutta-9. The learned District Forum has travelled all round for nothing and wasted its energy by discussing. So many immaterial and irregular points in the case. The moot question in this case is to be decided if the complainant/appellant is entitled to electricity in his shop room at premises No. 74, M.G. Road, Calcutta-9. We are not concerned whether he is a tenant under the Opposite Party/respondent No. 1 nor we are going to adjudicate the status enjoyed by the complainant/appellant. We are only concerned to adjudicate if the complainant/appellant is an occupier in the shop room at premises No. 74, M.G. Road, Calcutta-9. It is established that he is an occupier in the shop room at premises No. 74, M.G. Road, Calcutta-9 and he is entitled to have electric connection in his shop room at premises No. 74, M.G. Road, Calcutta-9. As per provisions of Section 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act. The word ''occupier'' appearing in the said Section 12(2) of Electricity Act clearly indicates that a person who is occupier in the premises is entitled to receive electric connection at his occupied portion.

On careful scrutiny it reveals that the Civil Suit pending before the City Civil Court relates a declaration and injunction of the occupancy of the shop room as tenant by the complainant/appellant. We are not also concerned if the complainant/appellant is evicted from the shop room by due process of Law. We are only concerned that so long the appellant stays in the shop room at premises No. 74, M.G. Road, Calcutta-9 as an occupier, he is entitled to electric connection as per Electricity laws. It is also curious to not that the Opposite Party/respondent No. 1 once says that it is a dispute between the Landlord and Tenant and on the next occasion she says that the complainant/ appellant has got no locus-standi as a tenant rather he is a trespasser in the shop room at premises No. 74, M.G. Road, Calcutta-9. As per said averments of the Opposite Party/respondent No. 1 if the said proposition is assumed to be treated then the complainant/appellant is an occupier even as a trespasser or as a tenant.

HENCE, the appellant is entitled to electric connection. It is settled law as per decision reported in 93 CWN 35 that the owner/ landlord ordinarily cannot stand on the way of the occupier to get an electric connection from the licensee. However we do not press the Opposits Party/respondent No. 1 to restore the supply line from the meter of Kiran Chandra Chakraborty as it has been allegedly disconnected and /or withdrawn of at her instance but we can safely direct the C.E.S.C. Ltd. respondent No. 2 to instal the new electric connection in the name of the complainant/appellant as an occupier in a shop room in the premises. We are of opinion that the Civil Suit pending before the 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta has got no nexus or connection with the present application before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to have a new electric connection in his name and /or direction upon the Opposite Party/respondent No. 1 to restore the electric line which has been disconnected at the instance of the Opposite Party/Respondent No. 1 whereas the Civil Suit for declaration and injunction in respect of title of a shop room between the parties. But in the instant complaint, the dispute has been raised in relation to the enjoyment of electricity by the appellant being an occupier in the shop room at premises No. 74, M.G. Road, Calcutta-9. The grievance of a Consumer as regards dispute about the availability of electricity can be redressed in a number of Forums such as Civil Court, before the Rent Controller, Writ Court and before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The grievance before the Rent Controller only can be agitated if there is a dispute between the Landlord and Tenant but before the Civil Suit or before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the occupier whether he is tenant or trespasser can agitate its grievances for getting supply of electricity from the licensee C.E.S.C. Ltd. We also do not admit that the cause sought to be redressed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is for the same cause of the Civil Suit before the Civil Court. The cause for both the proceeding are completely different and cannot be mixed up together based on Rule of convenience. Electricity is the most essential necessity of a consumer and no one can go without electricity. Even the direction by the Civil Court as regards to the status of occupancy of the complainant/ appellant does not affect the occupation of the shop room in the premises by the appellant.

WE do not award any cost of this proceeding. Hence we allow the appeal on contest and set aside the order dated 23.2.1993 passed by the learned C.D.F. in C.D.F. Case No. 803 of 1993. We direct the C.E.S.C.Ltd to instal a new electric connection to the complainant/appellant within 15 days upon due compliance of the formalities in this regard.

WE award a token compensation of Rs. 500/- to the appellant/complainant payable by the respondent No. 1 within 15 days hereof for causing unnecessary harassment and torture and mental agony to the appellant.

CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not award any cost for this proceeding. Appeal allowed.