SUDERSHANA DEVI vs SWARAN LATA PATIAL

THE challenge in this appeal is to the order of the District Forum, Dharamshala dated 28th September, 1996, whereby the District Forum has directed the appellants (hereinafter to be referred to as the opposite party) to restore the supply of water to the premises hired by the respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant) with immediate effect. THE opposite parties has also been directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- as compensation and the costs of Rs. 500/- to the complainant.

THE facts briefly stated and set-out in the complaint are that the complainant is in occupation of residential premises situated in Village Ghuggar Tanda, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra as a tenant of the opposite party and is paying Rs. 200/- as rent to the opposite party including water charges w.e.f. 12.9.1994. According to the complainant she was receiving a regular supply of water till 2.4.1996 when on that date the opposite party disconnected the water supply of the premises hired by her. THE complainant approached the opposite party to restore the water supply repeatedly with no fruitful results and hence she was constrained to file the present complaint. The opposite party has not contested the version put forwarded by the complainant. The complainant has also filed affidavit in support of her version. Therefore, the version put forwarded by the complainant has to be accepted as true. Therefore, we are in agreement with the findings given by the District Forum that the supply of water and electricity has been disconnected by the opposite party to the premises hired by the complainant with ulterior motive.

The next question, however, require consideration is whether in the afore-mentioned circumstances, when the water supply has been disconnected by the opposite party of the premises hired by the complainant, can we enter into this controversy and award compensation under the Consumer Protection Act

WE are afraid, we cannot entertain such a dispute, as according to us such a dispute is not a ''consumer'' dispute. Agreement to supply water by the opposite party to the complainant is an integral part of the terms of the tenancy and as admittedly the relationship of the complainant and the opposite party is that of landlord and the tenant. Such a contract of tenancy is in the nature I of contract of personal services, which has been excluded from the definition of ''service'' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Furthermore, the contract of tenancy is not in the nature of commercial transaction which are contemplated under the definition of ''consumer'' under Section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The cummulative reading of the definition of the ''consumer'' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and ''service'' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act and also having regard the scheme and intention of the provisions of the Act clearly show that the words ''consumer'' and ''service'' as defined in the Act should be construed to comprehend consumer of services of commercial and trade oriented nature only.

THE contract of tenancy which includes also the supply of water by the landlord to the tenant, therefore does not fall under the Act as such a contract of tenancy is of the nature of personal service and such a contract has been specifically excluded from the definition of the personal service and further such a contract cannot be termed as commercial and trade oriented in nature. The decision relied upon by the District Forum in Kirtibas Ghosh v. Vishwanath Saha and Ors., I (1996) CPJ 135 is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. In view of what is discussed above, we have no hesitation to hold that we have no jurisdiction to entertain dispute between the landlord and the tenant and such dispute cannot be termed as ''consumer'' dispute.

IN view of the foregoing, the appeal is accepted and the order of the District Forum is seta side and the complaint is dismissed. There is no orders as to the costs. Appeal accepted.