Judgment :- 1. The Electricity Board and the Assistant Engineer of the Board, who were defendants 3 and 2 in O. S. No. 312 of 1974. are the appellants in the second appeal. The plaintiff was a tenant of a building, of which the owner was the 1st defendant. The lease arrangement commenced on 1-11-1971. It is alleged in the plaint that the 1st defendant bad installed a 10 Horse Power Electric Motor in the building with Huller and that consequent thereto the rent was enhanced. There appears to have been some disputes between the landlord and the tenant. It is unnecessary to refer to those matters in this second appeal. The 1st defendant applied to the Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Board for disconnecting the electric connection to the building. The plaintiff protested In view of the apprehension about the possible disconnection by the 2nd defendant, the suit was filed for an injunction for restraining the 2nd defendant and officers of the Board from effecting any such disconnection as had been attempted earlier. The dispute raised by the 1st defendant in the suit is not relevant for the purpose of the second appeal. The Electricity Board and the Assistant Engineer contested the suit, mainly on the ground that the 1st defendant was the consumer of electrical energy, that the Board and its officers were competent to effect disconnection when a request in that behalf came from the consumer. Defendants 2 and 3 pleaded ignorance of the arrangement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. 2. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was a consumer and consequently the court had power to issue an order of injunction, to prevent injustice, which would have been effected by the disconnection of electricity to the premises of the plaintiff. That court noted that the 1st defendant did not participate in the trial and consequently he had been declared ex parte. It was true that the plaintiff was a tenant. On an examination of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the trial court took the view that the plaintiff was a consumer, as he was the occupier of the premises and was using the electrical energy supplied by defendants 2 and 3. In reaching that conclusion, it relied on the decision of the Patna High Court reported in Bhagalpur Electric Company v. Hari Prasad, AIR. 1938 Patna 15. In reaching that conclusion, it relied on the decision of the Patna High Court reported in Bhagalpur Electric Company v. Hari Prasad, AIR. 1938 Patna 15. The Board and the Assistant Engineer carried the matter in appeal. The court below affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Apparently in view of the general importance of the question, defendants 2 and 3 have approached this court filing the Second Appeal. 3. The only question raised by counsel at the time of the hearing of the appeal related to the construction of the term 'consumer' occurring under S.2(c) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. According to counsel, a person who had no ownership whatever in respect of the premises to which electricity was supplied, could not be termed as a consumer, and the courts had to deal with and act upon the term 'consumer' as provided in the Electricity Supply Act, 1950. 4. It is desirable at the outset to refer to the definition of the term as occurring in the Act. That is extracted below: "2(c) "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." 5. It will be noticed that the section is given in very wide terms. The first portion relates to a person who is supplied with energy. Such supply of energy can be by a licensee or by the Government or any other person engaged in the electricity business. It may be possible to contend that the supply as referred to in the opening portion of the section contemplates an arrangement between the two parties, and that in that view of the matter, the only person, who had sought the supply and obtained it from the Electricity Board is the owner of the building, who had moved in the matter. It is not necessary to express any view on this question. It is not necessary to express any view on this question. May be, a person who is the tenant of a building, who enjoys the facilities of electricity supply, will also be taken in by the term'any person who is supplied with energy'. Having regard to the setting in which the definition occurs, and in the scheme of this Act as also the Electricity Supply Act, it may not be permissible to give a narrow or restricted interpretation to that term. However, as I stated earlier, it is not necessary to pronounce finally on this aspect. Under the latter portion of the section, a person whose premises are connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee or other person, is also a consumer. Counsel submits that the premises are not owned by a tenant and therefore in the case of a tenant it cannot be posited that he is a person whose premises are connected for the purpose of receiving energy. Under the Electricity Supply Act, expressions which have not been specifically defined in Clause.1 to 14 of S.2 are to have the meaning respectively assigned to them in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Having regard to the object underlying the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as also the Electricity Supply Act, 1950, I am of the view that it is not permissible to give a restricted interpretation to the term "consumer". The term'whose premises are connected', will on a literal meaning take in the premises, of a person who is in possession thereof. The Electricity Supply Act contains very many provisions, casting duty on a consumer. If only a person who is owner of the premises could be treated as a consumer, it will create serious difficulties in the working of the enactment. That does not appear to be warranted by that scheme of the Act. In that view of the matter, a tenant, as in the present case, would also come within the definition of the term "consumer", as his premises are connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of the Electricity Department. The fact that he does not own the premises, will not make him otherwise than a consumer as defined under that term. 6. The above view is taken by the decision of the Patna High Court in Bhagalpur Electric Company v. Hari Prasad, AIR. The fact that he does not own the premises, will not make him otherwise than a consumer as defined under that term. 6. The above view is taken by the decision of the Patna High Court in Bhagalpur Electric Company v. Hari Prasad, AIR. 1938 Patna 15. 7. It is seen from the judgment of the lower appellate court that the tenant himself had, subsequent to the institution of the suit, vacated the premises. Counsel for the appellants points out that in view of the subsisting judgment and decree of the courts below, the Board and its officers may be precluded from effecting disconnection even for causes which justify disconnection. This is particularly so, when the plaintiff himself has vacated the premises. I do not think that there is necessity for such apprehension. If other causes than those referred to in the plaint exist justifying disconnection in accordance with the provisions of law, the judgment and decree passed by the courts below shall not in any way prevent the Board and its officers in effecting disconnection for such purposes permitted by the provisions. The second appeal is disposed of with the observations as contained above, but without any order as to costs.