JUDGMENT 1. THIS is an application by the defendant for revision of an order dated 14.2.1983 passed by the learned Munsif Second Court, alipore granting the plaintiff permission to get a new electric meter in the suit premises at his own costs and at his own risk and responsibility. 2. THE facts and circumstances out of which the present application has arisen, may be briefly stated. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 329 of 1982 on 5.8.1982 on the allegations that he was a tenant under the defendant in premises No. 2, chetla Hat Road in respect of one room, kitchen, bath, privy at a rental of Rs. 45-per month payable according to the English calendar month; that he was getting supply of electricity by mutual arrangement with a co-tenant named Sri lakshmi Sen in the same building on payment of electric charges with the approval of the defendant and that the defendant was threatening disconnection of the aforesaid supply of electricity and also water supply to the plaintiff. The plaintiff in the plaint has prayed for a declaration that he is a tenant in respect of the aforesaid suit premises and that the defendant has no right to interfere with the supply of electricity and water to the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, from interfering with the supply of electricity and water to the plaintiff during the continuance of his tenancy and also any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled in law and equity. On the same day, the plaintiff applied for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the supply of electricity and water to the plaintiff's tenanted the suit building. The learned passed an exparte order directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of supply of electricity and water to the plaintiff's tenanted portion. Thereafter on 11.8.1982 the defendant appeared and filed an affidavit stating that he was aware of the order for maintaining status quo and that Lakshmi Sen the co-tenant had surrendered his tenancy to the defendant. The application for temporary injunction was disposed of by order no. 16 dated 15.2.1983 and the learned Munsif rejected the application as it was not-pressed. Thereafter on 11.8.1982 the defendant appeared and filed an affidavit stating that he was aware of the order for maintaining status quo and that Lakshmi Sen the co-tenant had surrendered his tenancy to the defendant. The application for temporary injunction was disposed of by order no. 16 dated 15.2.1983 and the learned Munsif rejected the application as it was not-pressed. In the meantime, the plaintiff had filed an application under section 151 of the Code on 6.9.1982 in which it was alleged that after the passing of the order for maintaining status quo the defendant disconnected the supply of electricity to the plaintiff's portion and that the plaintiff is entitled to supply of electricity as an amenity annexed to his tenancy. The plaintiff further pleaded that if he was not given permission to get electricity by having a new meter in his name, he would suffer untold inconvenience. On such pleading, the plaintiff prayed for permission to get new electric meter, at his tenanted premises from the calcutta Electric Supply Corporation at his own cost. The learned Munsif after hearing both parties has found that there is no denying the fact that the plaintiff is entitled to have the connection of electricity in the premises in suit and in view of the essential nature of the amenity of supply of electricity the prayer of the plaintiff should be allowed. In that view, he has granted the permission to the plaintiff to get new electric meter in the suit premises at his own costs and risk and responsibility, In challenging the aforesaid order of the learned Munsif, it has been sub-mission behalf of the defendant petitioner that the learned Muhsif has committed an error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order on several grounds. Firstly, it is contended that there is want of jurisdiction of the learned Munsif. In view of the decision of the learned Judge N. G. Chaudhuri, J. in Gadadhar Das v. Santosh Mukherjee, 87 CWN 1043 that when no suit for eviction against the tenant was pending, he as plaintiff had no choice of forum and could apply for restoration of electricity strictly in terms of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act before the Rent Controller only. The learned Judge has observed that coming to civil court as plaintiff he cannot be allowed to contend that "the Rent Controller and civil court have concurrent power". The learned Judge has observed that coming to civil court as plaintiff he cannot be allowed to contend that "the Rent Controller and civil court have concurrent power". In the reported case, the plaintiff filed a suit against the landlord for a declaration and permanent injunction, one of the prayers in which was restoration of supply of electricity to the suit premises and thereafter he applied for temporary mandatory injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for restoration of supply of electricity to the suit premises. The learned judge distinguished the earlier decisions of this Court in Loken Bose v. Asima dey 81 CWN 943, Bajcul Rani v. Nanibala, 86 CWN 946 and Suresh Kumar vs. Mahadev Prosad, AIR 1982 Calcutta 395, as the common feature of all the three cases aforesaid is that temporary injunction was granted in favour of the tenants in suits for eviction brought against them by the landlords. The learned judge, N. G. Chaudhuri J. further held that the grant of prayer of the plaintiff amounted to prejuding the suit and could amount to failure of justice. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the prayer in the application under section 151 of the Code by the plaintiff in the instant case is beyond the scope of the prayers in the plaint in which permanent injunction has been sought for to restrain the defendant from interfering with the supply of electricity which the plaintiff was getting from the co-tenant lakshmi Sen by mutual arrangement and which was not permissible in law, and the plaintiff has made averments in the plaint of threatened interference with such supply of electricity as foundation of such prayer without any prayer for declaration of his right to get electricity as a tenant in the suit premises from the Calcutta Electric Supply corporation. 3. ON the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff opposite party that the plaintiff has got right to get supply of electricity as a tenant under the general law flowing from the provisions of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and also under the provisions of section 12 (2) and Section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. It is, further submitted that in the three decisions reported in 86 C.W.N. 946, 81 C.W.N. 943 and A.I.R. 1982 Cal. It is, further submitted that in the three decisions reported in 86 C.W.N. 946, 81 C.W.N. 943 and A.I.R. 1982 Cal. 395, it has been held by this Court that a tenant has remedies before the Controller and before the Civil Court which are concurrent. The learned Judge M. M. Dutt, J. in 81 C.W.N. 948 has held that section 34 of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, 1956 does not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court to grant relief to the tenant defendant by way of a mandatory injunction under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code for restoration of water supply although under section 34 of the said Act the Controller has been authorised to grant relief to the tenant for the making of repairs and taking of measures for the maintenance of essential services. It has been held that there is nothing in section 34 or in any other provisions of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 which bars either expressly or by necessary implication the jurisdiction of the civil court to grant the same or similar relief to a tenant who is a defendant in a suit for ejectment. It has been found that although section 34 provides a speedy remedy if the tenant has a special remedy under any other law he should not be deprived of that remedy and that temporary injunction is granted in aid of legal right and the period of duration of such injunction will be for the period during which the suit will continue. The learned Judge, Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. in 86 C. W. N. 946 has taken a similar view and held that the civil court's jurisdiction to enforce the rights and liabilities of the lessor and the lessee set out in section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act have not been taken away by section 34 of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act and the remedies before the Controller and the civil court are cumulative and the tenant can choose either forum to seek his remedy. In A.I.R. 1982 Cal. 395 a statutory tenant in a suit' for eviction alleged that his supply of electricity had been cut off by the plaintiff landlord and applied under section 151 of the Code for restoration. In A.I.R. 1982 Cal. 395 a statutory tenant in a suit' for eviction alleged that his supply of electricity had been cut off by the plaintiff landlord and applied under section 151 of the Code for restoration. The plaintiff landlord raised objection on the ground that although the tenant had a right to enjoy electricity he should not get supply through the meter of another tenant and such supply could not be restored without offending the provisions of Indian Electricity Act. The learned Munsif rejected the application under section 151 of the Code holding that the tenant had a right to get electricity supplied at the suit premises at his own cost by Submitting a proper application before the C.E.S.C. Ltd. Against the said order the tenant defendant moved this Court in revision. The learned judge, Mrs. J. Nag, J. held that the statutory tenant had a right to get supply of essential services and directed that the landlord would not put up obstruction to the setting up of a new meter by the C.E.S.C. and till that was done, directed the landlord to give temporary connection from the old meter from which the tenant was getting supply of electricity. 4. AFTER considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, I find in view of the decisions in Loken Bose's case, 81 CWN 943 and Bakul Rani's case, 86 C. W. N. 946 with which I am in respectful agreement, that the civil court has concurrent jurisdiction to grant to the tenant the remedies which the tenant can get under the provisions of section 34 of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, 1956 and that the jurisdiction of the civil court to grant such relief is not expressly or impliedly barred. So far as the forum is concerned the provisions of section 36 of the Act stand on the same footing as those of section 34 of the Act. In my view, the right of the tenant to get the remedy from the civil court doe's not depend on whether he seeks that remedy as the plaintiff by instituting a suit in the civil court or by applying for it as the defendant in an ejectment suit. The concurrent jurisdiction of the civil court does not, in my opinion, depend on the position of the tenant as the plaintiff or the defendant in the litigation. The concurrent jurisdiction of the civil court does not, in my opinion, depend on the position of the tenant as the plaintiff or the defendant in the litigation. If he can get the remedy from the civil court as the defendant, there is no reason why he should not be allowed to have the same remedy as the plaintiff in a suit. In the present case, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has no right to get supply of electricity by filing a suit and without taking recourse to the provisions of section 36 of the Act. The provisions of section 36 deal with the situation which obtained prior to the amendment of section 10 (2) of the Indian Electricity act 1910 when the consent of the owner and the occupier of the premises was necessary before the licensee could give supply of electricity to the premises. But after the amendment of section 10 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act in 1959 the consent of the owner or the occupier is sufficient for the licensee to give electric connection to the premises. In the instant case, the plaintiff applied for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the supply of electricity which the plaintiff was getting from a co-tenant at the time of filing of the suit. The plaintiff's case is that during the pendency of the suit there was a change in the circumstances as the defendant accepted surrender of the tenancy from the said co-tenant which led to the stoppage of supply of electricity to the plaintiff's premises. In view of such change in the circumstances, the plaintiff applied under section 51 of the Code for court's permission to take supply of electricity through a mew electric meter at the plaintiff's cost. When both the application for temporally injunction and the application under section 151 of the Code were pending and were fixed for hearing on 15. 2. 1981 the plaintiff did not press the application for temporary injunction as it practically became anfractuous, and pressed his application under section 151 of the code which was allowed by the learned munsif after hearing both parties. 2. 1981 the plaintiff did not press the application for temporary injunction as it practically became anfractuous, and pressed his application under section 151 of the code which was allowed by the learned munsif after hearing both parties. It is settled law that the court has inherent power under section 151 of the Code to take into account the change in the circumstances during the pendency of the suit or subsequent events where it is shown that the relief claimed originally has on account of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate and where it is necessary to take into account the changed circumstances to shorten litigation and do complete justice between the parties. In the present case, the learned Munsif has exercised his inherent power and granted permission to the plaintiff to take supply of electricity through a new meter having regard to the subsequent events pleaded by the plaintiff. In my view, it cannot be said that the learned Munsif has acted capriciously or unreasonably in making the impugned order so as to cause a failure of justice. But the duration of the interlocutory order will be till the disposal of the suit and it will be subject to the result of the suit. The question whether the supply of electricity which the plaintiff was getting from the co-tenant was disconnected before or after the filing of the suit, is left open and not decided by this Court. 5. IN the result, I find that the learned munsif has not committed and jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order and the revisional application fails. The Rule is discharged subject to the provision that the order of the learned munsif granting the plaintiff permission to take supply of electricity from a new meter will operate till the disposal of the suit and the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation will be at liberty to disconnect supply of electricity, in case the suit instituted by the plaintiff is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Let the records be sent down to the court below as expeditiously as possible. Rule discharged with directions.