JUDGMENT 1. THE opposite party No. 1 Smt. Radha Debi Saraogi is a consumer of electricity under the petitioner. For non-payment of electricity charges amounting to Rs. 601. 94 paise the supply of electricity to the meter standing in the name of the said opposite party, was disconnected. The opposite party No. 4 claiming to the a tenant of the opposite party No. 2, filed an application under section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as the act) before the rent controller, Purulia praying for issue of process against the petitioner and the opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as also for a direction on the petition for immediate restoration of the supply of electricity. The petitioner was impleaed as opposite party No. 4 in the aforesaid application which was registered as Misc. case (R. C. Case) No. 3 of 1975-76. 2. BY an order dated 4. 9. 75 passed by the Rent Controller the petitioner was asked immediately to restore supply of electricity which had been disconnected. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 13. 9. 75 to the Rent Controller, namely the opposite party No. 5 in this application pleading that on receipt of the outstanding arrears, the reconnection charges and the security deposit from the opposite party No. 1 the supply would be restored and prayed for necessary instructions to be issued to the parties concerned. By an order dated 11. 11. 75 the petitioner was directed to restore the supply immediately irrespective of the departmental Rules or orders of the west Bengal State Electricity Board. The petitioner made a further representation to the Rent Controller praying for review of the order dated 11. 11. 75. By another order dated 2. 12,75 the petitioner was asked to restore the supply by 17. 12. 75 failing which the petitioner was threatened with a prosecution under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The legality of the order dated 4. 9. 75 ordering the petitioner to restore the supply of electricity and the subsequent orders dated 11. 11. 75 arid 2. 12. 75 have been challenged in this rule. 3. MR. 12. 75 failing which the petitioner was threatened with a prosecution under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The legality of the order dated 4. 9. 75 ordering the petitioner to restore the supply of electricity and the subsequent orders dated 11. 11. 75 arid 2. 12. 75 have been challenged in this rule. 3. MR. Samir Kumar Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the supply of electricity is not an easement within the meaning of section 31 of the Act unless the consumption of electricity is included in the rent payable by the tenant and the petitioner not being a landlord the prosecution under section 31 of the act is not tenable as far as the petitioner is concerned. This argument of Mr. Mukherjee is supported by Mr. Surathi Mohan Sanyal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the state. 4. ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner is not the landlord of the opposite party No. 4 and as such the petitioner cannot be held liable for the disturbance of any easement, even the supply of electricity connected to the tenanted premises. The learned Magistrate cannot expect the petitioner who carries on the business of supplying electricity to override its rules as well as the rules framed under the West Bengal State Electricity Board, restore the supply to a party who has not paid the electricity dues or the reconnection charges and other necessary deposits has not complied with the statutory formalities. In my view the proceedings under section 31 of the Act against the petitioner is clearly misconceived. I, therefore, allow this application, set aside the impugned orders as far as the petitioner is concerned and quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner in Misc. Case (R. C. Case) No. 3 of 1975-76.