S.R.CHETAL vs Delhi Vidyut Board

DISTRICT Forum-IV disposed of 14 complaints by a common order dated 3.4,1998. Aggrieved by the order the complainants have preferred these appeals which are being disposed of by this order. The facts in these appeals are substantially identical and it will be convenient to refer to the facts in appeal first above-mentioned namely 278/1998, S.R. Chetal v. DVB, arising from Complaint No. 1452/1997 which are fairly representative of the other cases. The appellant is resident of House No. 17A/36, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and is running a Guest House. He obtained electricity connection for domestic purposes only. The complainant challenged action of DVB in raising bills on the basis of non- domestic/commercial tariff. A representation was made but the opposite parties failed to consider the same and continued charging on non-domestic tariff basis. The complainant, therefore, approached. DISTRICT Forum. The DISTRICT Forum considered the provisions of the tariff for the year 1997-98 as well as the relevant case law and held that the premises in question was covered in the category of ''Non-domestice premises'' and chargeable accordingly. The DISTRICT Forum distinguished the decision of learned Single Judge in Sohan Lal Sachdeva v. New Delhi Municipal Council, 65 (1997) Delhi Law Times 215, heavily relied on by the complainant and held that the present case was directly covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Mafatlal Industries & Ors. Etc., JT 1996 (3) SC 190. The complaints were accordingly dismissed. Hence these appeals.

NONE appeared for the appellants at the time of hearing. However, after the appeals had been heard and orders reserved, a lawyer appeared and produced photocopy of Ration Card in Appeals No. 283 to 288 (inclusive). Part ''A'' of the Tariff for the year 1997-98 contains definitions. The relevant definitions are as under: "7. Domestic premises means premises being used for bona fide residential purposes where the resident is entitled to Ration Card from Government of NCT of Delhi. 8. Industrial premises shall mean premises including the precinct thereof in any part of which a manufacturing process is carried on with the aid of power. 9. Non-domestic premises shall mean all premises other than industrial premises, domestic premises and agricultural premises unless specified otherwise."

The contention on behalf of the appellant appears to be that since the appellants hold a Ration Card issued by the Government of NCT, they are covered under the expression ''Domestic purposes'' and not under the category of non- domestic premises. We are unable to accept such a contention. The definition of expression domestic premises consists of two parts namely, (i) premises being used for bona fide residential purposes and (ii) where the resident is entitled to Ration Card from the Government of NCT of Delhi. By producing the Ration Card, all that the appellants in the concerned appeals have succeeded in showing is that they satisfied one of the two requirements for being covered under the category of domestic premises. The second condition which is sine qua non for bringing the premises within the definition of domestic premises namely use for bona fide residential purposes is missing. The admitted case is that the premises are being used as guest houses. Part-D of the tariff under the heading non-domestic (low tension)-ND (LT) lays down various sub- categories of non-domestic premises. At the end of the list entry XII reads "any other category of consumers not specified/covered in the other categories in this tariff schedule." We entertain, no doubt, that the case of premises in which guest houses are run are converted in the category of non-domestic premises as defined in the relevant tariff. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Mafatlal Industries, (supra) the case before the Supreme Court related to the tariff schedule annexed to the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958. Category ''R'' applied to premises exclusively used as a private residential premises and category ''C'' applied to residuary category to premises which did not come within the categories ''R'' ''S'', ''RC'' (LV) and ''SL''. The question for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether guest houses maintained by the Company for the use of its employees when they came to the city can be held to be a premises "exclusively used as a private residence" so as to come within the category ''R''. Category ''R'', meaning premises exclusively used as private residential premises, was taken to connote where the premises which was used by any person privately for his own residence for a sufficiently continued period and not a premises where a person could come and spend a day or a night and men go back. It was laid down that words must be given their natural meaning and must be understood in their ordinary or popular sense and each word must have its play. The guest houses maintained by various companies for the stay of its employees when they visited the city of Bombay was, therefore, held to be not covered in category ''R''. In our view, the District Forum has rightly placed reliance on the aforesaid judgment and the present case is clearly covered there under because the important ingredients of residential premises, namely, use for bona fide residential purposes is missing and the case of appellants falls in the residuary category of non- domestic premises.

The decision in Sohan Lal Sachdeva, (supra), is clearly distinguishable. That case arose under Delhi Electricity Control Order as distinguished from DVB tariff for the year 1997- 98 which is relevant tariff for the cases under consideration. In the suit filed the Trial Court (Sub-Judge) held under Issue No. 1 that user for the premises running a guest house could not be termed as commercial user. On the other issue it was held that the NDMC was competent to charge prescribed electricity and water consumption rates. In the conclusion, it was observed that since user was neither domestic nor commercial, NDMC was competent to charge the electricity at non-domestic rates. Aggrieved by the decision of two other issues, NDMC preferred appeal against the judgment and decree. The First Appellate Court not only decided the appeal against the plaintiff but also reversed the findings of Issue No. 1, which was not challenged before the First Appellate Court. The NDMC having failed to challenge the findings of Issue No. 1, was not held to be competent to challenge the same in the second appeal. There is no such difficulty in the present case.

OUR attention was invited by learned Counsel for DVB to A.N. Sherwani & Others v. Lt. Governor and Others, 38 (1989) Delhi Law Times 357. That was a case under Delhi Police Act, 1978 and the Sarai''s Act, 1867. On a consideration of the relevant provisions, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court held that it was immaterial whether food or drinks are served in a lodging house. It was further held that the very act of staying and for that purpose making the accommodation available was itself entertainment. The limited significance of the said decision for the present purposes is that in order that a premises is held to be a lodging house, it was not necessary that food or drinks are served therein. In other words, premises would still be premises used as a guest house even if there is no provision for serving food or drinks. This was one of the relevant considerations in Sohan Lal Sachdeva case. For the foregoing reasons, we find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the District Forum. There is no merit in these appeals and these are accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be placed on the communications files and communicated to the parties as well as District Forum-IV. Appeals dismissed.