JUDGMENT : Hari Swarup, J. This petition is directed against the proceedings for recovery of electricity dues. The Petitioner is the owner of the premises which had the electric connection No. SC 26S74 A/C. The connection was in the Petitioner's name. On 25th January, 1972 for non-payment of dues the supply was disconnected. An inspection was made by the Respondents on 10th May, 1973 and it was found that the electric energy was being supplied through the meter to the Petitioner's house in dispute. On a reading being taken it was found that considerable quantity of energy has been supplied. On the basis of this inspection the Petitioner was billed for the price of the electric energy supplied to the premises. The Petitioner has contended that after the supply had been formally disconnected for nonpayment of dues, no liability can be fastened on the Petitioner, for any energy that may have been consumed unauthorisedly by the tenant of the Petitioner, who was in actual occupation of the premises. According to the Respondents the liability of the Petitioner is still there. 2. Section 23 of the Indian Electricity Act (hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Act) provides for the charge of energy and Sub-section(3)(a) provides: In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a licensee may charge for energy supplied by him to any consumer (a) by the actual amount of energy so supplied. The Petitioner will accordingly be liable to pay for the supply of energy in case he is the consumer within the meaning of the Electricity Act. Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Electricity Act gives the definition of the word 'consumer' in the following terms: “Consumer” means any person who is supplied with energy by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying energy to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is not a consumer because the electric energy was not supplied at her instance. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is not a consumer because the electric energy was not supplied at her instance. The contention also reversely is that unless the supplier has the intention to supply and deliberately supplies energy, the Petitioner cannot be deemed to be a consumer. It is further urged that as there is no evidence to prove that the Petitioner who was only the owner of the premises and was not residing therein, had consumed energy, she should not be made liable to pay the amount. We are unable to accept the contentions of the learned Counsel as the definition of the word 'consumer' does not deal only with the 'intentional' or conscious supply or only with valid and contractual receipt of energy. It is only the actual supply of energy that is relevant. If electric energy is supplied to any person by the licensee or the Board, the liability will be there. Learned Counsel contended that as there was disconnection the supply thereof cannot be deemed to be chargeable supply of energy to the consumer. As we have already held, it is the factum of supply and not the formality of connection that is relevant for the purpose of determining Whether a person to whom energy is supplied is a consumer or not. Energy received even by tapping, pilferage and theft will amount to its receipt and the person receiving it will be a consumer. 4. Moreover, so far as the case of the Petitioner is concerned, it is covered primarily by the second clause of the definition which includes within the definition of 'consumer' any person whose premises are connected for the pose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee. It is not disputed that the Petitioner is the owner of the premises and the premises were the Petitioner's premises. It is immaterial how and under what circumstances the supply line of the licensee is connected with the consuming line in the premises. Undoubtedly, after disconnection there was a re-connection. May be, as the Petitioner had not made any application for reconnection, the connection was not made at her request, but as the electric energy was supplied through the meter there was undoubtedly a reconnection. What is relevant is only whether the energy is supplied or not and not how a connection with the 'works' comes into being. 5. May be, as the Petitioner had not made any application for reconnection, the connection was not made at her request, but as the electric energy was supplied through the meter there was undoubtedly a reconnection. What is relevant is only whether the energy is supplied or not and not how a connection with the 'works' comes into being. 5. “Works” has been defined in Clause (n) of Section 2 as under: “Works” includes electric supply-line and any building, plant, machinery, apparatus and any other thing of whatever description required to supply energy to the public and to carry into effect the objects of a license or sanction granted under this Act or any other law for the time being in force. “Electric supply line” has been defined to mean: a wire, conductor or other means used for conveying, transmitting or distributing energy (whether by overhead line or underground cable), together with any casing, coating, covering, tube, pipe or insulator enclosing, surrounding or supporting the same or any part thereof, or any apparatus, connected therewith for the purposes of so conveying, transmitting or distributing such energy and includes any support, cross-arm, stray, strut or safety device erected or set up for that purpose. 6. When the definitions of the words “works” and “electric supply line” are read with the definition of the term “consumer” under the Act, there appears no difficulty in holding that the electric energy was supplied to the premises of the Petitioner through a connection of the receiving line with the works of the Board. In Ram Chander Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and Another, AIR 1967 SC 349 the Supreme Court after considering the definition of the word “consumer” as contained in Section 2(c) of the Electricity Act held: .... It is an admitted fact that the mill was connected with works of P.E.S. Co. If, therefore, the Appellants became co-owners by reason of the purchase of the mill from Musanlal they must be regarded as consumers even though Musanlal's name still continues to be borne on the records of P.E.S.Co. 7. The Petitioner being the owner of the premises must, therefore, be deemed to be the “consumer” within the meaning of the Electricity Act and thus liable to pay for the supply of electric energy to the premises. 8. 7. The Petitioner being the owner of the premises must, therefore, be deemed to be the “consumer” within the meaning of the Electricity Act and thus liable to pay for the supply of electric energy to the premises. 8. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel that if energy is supplied not with an authorised connection the process of pilferage or theft, the liability of the consumer for payment of charges for the consumption will not exist. The law does not contemplate the supply of electric energy to any premises free of charge. The law contemplates payment for all energy supplied to a consumer, whether received under a valid agreement or otherwise. 9. The 'petitioner's claim that the tenant and not she was liable to pay, because the tenant was in actual occupation of the premises and had consumed the energy, cannot be agitated in these proceedings. As the Petitioner is the owner of the premises and thus a 'consumer' within the definition of the Act, she cannot escape the liability. The tenant who may have actually consumed the energy will also be the consumer within the meaning of the Electricity Act and liable for the amount, but that will not disbar the Respondents from claiming the amount from the Petitioner. The rights and liabilities between the Petitioner and her tenant will depend on the agreement for tenancy between them. This matter cannot be adjudicated in these proceedings. 10. It is also not possible in the course of these proceedings to decide whether the quantum of charges it being correctly demanded from the Petitioner. Such an adjudication will depend upon the elaborate evidence that may be led fry the parties to establish their cases. Moreover, the Petitioner has an alternative remedy u/s 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Electrical Undertakings (Does Recovery) Act, 1958; it is open to a consumer who denies her liability to institute a suit for the refund of the disputed amount after making deposit thereof With the Prescribed Authority. 11. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.