W.B.S.E.B. vs SALIL KUMAR PURKAIT

THIS appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the District Forum, 24-Parganas (South) on 8.5.2003. The facts of the case in a nutshell are stated hereunder.

THE complainant is a tenant of Shri Hari Sadhan Das (O.P.-2) since 1965 and is running a commercial college for shorthand and type-writing. He was enjoying electricity from his landlord''s since inception of his tenancy. On 20.9.201 the said electric line was disconnected. He applied for a new meter in the name of the commercial college. But the O.P.-1 (W.B.S.E.B.) did not instal a new meter. Under such circumstances, being aggrieved the complainant filed the case before the Forum praying for direction upon the O.P.-1 to instal a new meter in the name of the commercial college. In its order the case was allowed on contest without cost and compensation. The Forum directed the O.P.-1 to instal a new meter in the name of the commercial college within 30 days from the date of the order. There was no order against O.P.-2.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order W.B.S.E.B./the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the present respondent but not the commercial college is a tenant under the landlord and the demand for getting electricity in the first floor is wholly unwarranted since the meter can only be installed in the ground floor under the staircase where other meters are lying. It is further submitted by the appellant that the landlord was all along objecting to such installation of meter and until and unless the consent of the landlord is given and all formalities are complied with, the Board cannot enter into an agreement and cannot instal the meter. According to the appellant the order of the Forum below is not proper and is liable to be set aside.

ON careful perusal of the documents and record we have noticed that the respondent himself is a tenant under the landlord (O.P.-2 before the Forum) at the premises. Being a Principal of a commercial college the respondent has applied for a separate meter at the first floor at that premises. The landlord has not given his consent regarding installation of a new meter in the name of his tenant. In this context we are of the opinion that the consent of that landlord in installation of a new meter in the name of the tenant is not necessary if he is a lawful tenant. We have observed that before the Forum below the landlord has said by filing written objection that the present respondent is a lawful tenant under him. So the present appellant can instal the new separate meter in the name of the respondent. It is not possible for the appellant according to law to give connection in the name of the commercial college, as the commercial college is not a lawful tenant under the landlord. The Forum directed the appellant to instal a new meter at the first floor. But in this respect it may be said that second service is not permissible. According to the I.E. Act, meter can only be installed in the ground floor under the staircase where other meters are lying. Hence it is ordered that the appellant shall instal a new separate meter in the name of the present respondent in the ground floor where other meters are lying within 15 (fifteen) days subject to completion of all formalities by the respondent. The respondent shall deposit all necessary charges according to the I.E. Act. The landlord shall not raise any resistance at the time of installation of new separate metre in the name of the respondent. The respondent shall make arrangements for free access so that the appellant can instal the new separate meter without any resistance to the meter board. The appeal is allowed in part on contest and the impugned judgment passed by the Forum below is modified accordingly. The appeal is thus disposed of. Appeal partly allowed.