Punam Chand Ranga v. CESC Limited — 1995 DIGILAW 207 (CAL)

JUDGMENT Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. The five writ petitioners in this writ petition pray for direction upon the respondent Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (CESC for shrot) for supplying electricity to them and also for separate meters. The writ petitioners claim to be tenants in respect of different portions of premises No. 168B, Cotton Street, Calcutta under the respondent No.2. It is the contention of the CESC inter alia that the meters in the said premises stood in the name of the landlord and as the landlord made huge default in payment of electricity dues the line was disconnected and the writ petitioners as tenants/occupants of the said premises who enjoyed the benefit of electric connection to the said premises through the meter standing in the name of the landlord are not entitled to separate connection and meter in 'respect of their separate portions unless such arrear dues are liquidated. The matter however went up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court remanded the matter by order dated 21st November, 1994 with certain directions upon the trial court. It was directed inter alia that the trial court would reconsider the prayer of each of the writ petitioners for a suitable direction to the CESC to supply electricity to the tenants alleged to be in occupation as an interim measure on such terms as are considered appropriate and reasonable subject to final outcome of the suit. Subsequently, the writ petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 5 filed application dated the 19th January, 1995 inter alia praying for separate electric connection and also for interim orders. Affidavit-in-opposition also has been affirmed on behalf of the CESC. The landlord respondent however preferred not to appear before this court inspite of service of notice. However, on the submission of the learned Advocates of all the parties appearing before me and as desired by them the application of the writ petitioners 1, 3 and 5 for interim order and the writ petition itself have been taken up together for simultaneous disposal as common questions are involved therein. 2. The contentions of the respondent CESC are summarised hereinafter. 2. The contentions of the respondent CESC are summarised hereinafter. In 1977 the landlord of' the said premises filed a title suit being Title Suit No. 1788 of 1977 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta against the CESC for declaration that the CESC is: not entitled to charge commercial rate for current consumed at the said premises and obtained an ex parte ad interim order of injunction restraining the CESC from disconnecting the electric line in the said premises. Thereafter the said suit was dismissed for default several times and lastly it. was dismissed in 1988 and a Misc. case for restoration of the said suit was filed and also an application under s. 151 CPC for an ad interim order of injunction which was rejected and then the landlord filed a revisional application in the High Court. The revisional application was disposed of on 2.3.93 by directing the landlord to deposit Rs. 1 lakh in the trial court and to go on paying the current electricity dues and in default the CESC was given the liberty to proceed as per law. However, initially on the said revisional application the landlord obtained an ex parte ad interim order of injunction and taking advantage of that interim order of injunction he did not pay the dues for consumption of electricity in the said premises to the tune of Rs. 10,23,382.73 which has been arrived at after adjustment of security deposit. Apart from the said amount delayed payment surcharge is also payable for the said amount. As the consumer failed to make payment of the current dues, the electricity supply at the said premises was disconnected by the CESC on 26 .7.93 pursuant to the leave granted to it in the order of the court dated 2.3.93. On 11.8.93 the landlord moved a writ application praying inter alia for a direction to restore the supply but no interim order was passed for restoration. Then on 29.9.93 .the present writ petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 applied to the CESC for new supply and earlier on 2.8.93 the writ petitioner No. 2 applied to the CESC for such supply. Subsequently, the writ petitioners filed the present writ petition. I have recorded above the contentions raised by the CESC in this case. Then on 29.9.93 .the present writ petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 applied to the CESC for new supply and earlier on 2.8.93 the writ petitioner No. 2 applied to the CESC for such supply. Subsequently, the writ petitioners filed the present writ petition. I have recorded above the contentions raised by the CESC in this case. It is also the contention of the CESC that some of the writ petitioners are not tenants or authorised occupants in the concerned premises. 3. My attention has been drawn by the learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners to the order of the Supreme Court dated the 21st November, 1994 where it has been recorded that the learned counsel appearing for the landlord stated before the Supreme Court that the respondent Nos. 1 and 5, P.C. Ranga and Kamal Singh Bhutoria are admitted by the landlord to be in occupation of the premises occupied by them as his tenants. It may be mentioned here that said P.C. Ranga and Kamal Singh Bhutoria are the writ petitioner Nos. 1 and 5 respectively in this writ petition. The learned Advocate for the petitioners further attracted by attention to a letter dated 6.11.93 issued on behalf of the landlord to the CESC, annexure-G to the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Shri Mihir Kr. Bose on 23.2.95 on behalf of the CESC. It is stated on behalf of the landlord at page 3 of the said letter that Deokishan Acharya (writ petitioner No.2) and Ashoke Ranga (writ petitioner No.4) are not bona fide tenants in the premises and they are unauthorised persons in the building but Bimala Devi Ranga (writ petitioner No.3) and Kamal Singh Bhutoria (writ petitioner No.5) are bona fide tenants but they are defaulters in payment of rents including their shares of electricity charges. In view of the statements made in this letter as well as in view of the submission made on behalf of the landlord before the Supreme Court it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the writ petitioners that at least the writ petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 5 are admitted by the landlord to be bona fide tenants in respect of the portions occupied by them in the concerned premises and as such there is no difficulty in their having separate electric connections and meters from the CESC. 1, 3 and 5 are admitted by the landlord to be bona fide tenants in respect of the portions occupied by them in the concerned premises and as such there is no difficulty in their having separate electric connections and meters from the CESC. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that they all made payment of their shares of the electricity charges to the landlord and as such they are not responsible in any way for non-payment of the electricity charges by the landlord to the CESC. But the landlord, however, as would appear from the said letter dated 6.11.93 annexure-G to the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Shri Mihir Kr. Bose did not admit the payment of electricity charges to him by the writ petitioners. In fact in the said letter the landlord has also stated the respective amounts which are payable by the writ petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. It is the contention of the CESC on the other hand that unless the arrear electricity dues payable by the consumer are paid to the CESC the writ petitioners even if they are bona fide tenants or authorised occupants in the concerned premises, are not entitled to get separate electric connection or meter in their names inasmuch as they enjoyed the benefit of supply of electricity earlier in the same premises for which the consumer is a defaulter to the CESC in respect of the charges payable for such consumption of electricity. 4. The point that falls for consideration is whether the writ petitioners or any or some of them are entitled to separate electric connection and meter in respect of the respective portions occupied by them when the dues in respect of the electric charges are outstanding and for which the CESC disconnected the supply to the consumer 'in the said premises. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the CESC being a licensee in terms of the definition contained in s. 2(h) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, is bound to supply electricity to the petitioners in view of s. 22 of the said Act. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the CESC being a licensee in terms of the definition contained in s. 2(h) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, is bound to supply electricity to the petitioners in view of s. 22 of the said Act. Section 22 purports to impose an obligation on licensee to supply energy and inter alia provides that where energy is supplied by a licensee, every person within the area of supply shall, except in so far as is otherwise provided by the terms and conditions of the license, be entitled, on application, to a supply on the same terms as those on which any other person in the same area is entitled in similar circumstances to a corresponding supply. The said s. 22 contains a proviso which is however not much relevant in this context. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the s. 22 the CESC has an obligation to provide electric connection with separate meter to each of the petitioners for which the petitioners have applied, without insisting on payment of the outstanding dues of the landlord consumer in respect of charges for electricity already consumed. In my opinion however the matter is not that simple and s. 22 by itself cannot champion the cause of the petitioners by excluding the operation of the other relevant statutory provisions which may be attracted in such circumstances. In this connection we may first take notice of the definition of the term 'consumer' as contained in s. 2(e) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. There 'consumer' has been defined to mean 'any person who is supplied with energy by a licensee...... and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee. . . . . . .' It is therefore evident that the term 'consumer' not only means the person to whom energy is supplied by the licensee, but also includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected with the works of a licensee for the purpose of receiving energy. . . . . . .' It is therefore evident that the term 'consumer' not only means the person to whom energy is supplied by the licensee, but also includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected with the works of a licensee for the purpose of receiving energy. The premises receiving energy from the licensee also therefore has a contextual relevance in determining whether a particular person is also included with the meaning of the term 'consumer' by reason of his nexus with the premises to which energy is supplied by the licensee,. . . . . . be it a nexus as owner or as occupier. It is evident that <, the words 'includes any' person whose permises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee' obviously refer to the owner of the premises and may also refer to an occupier of the premises in appropriate cases. There is also no doubt that an occupier of the premises even if he is not the owner of the same may also get supply of electric energy in his name from the licensee and may thereby become a consumer. This position becomes clear by a reference to the provisions contained in s. 12. Sub-section (1) of s. 12 authorises the licensee to do certain acts, such as, laying down and placing of electric supply lines and other works, repairing, alternating or removing the same and doing all other acts necessary for the due supply of energy, etc. Sub-section (2) of s. 12 however necessitates inter alia the consent of the owner or occupier concerned, as the case may be, to laying down or placing any electric supply line, or other work in, through or against any building, or on, over or under any land not dedicated to public use. Sub-section (6) of s. 12 however clarifies that in s. 12 occupier of any building or land means a person in lawful occupation of that building or land'. Therefore for laying down or placing any electric supply line or other work in any building, or land not dedicated to public use the consent of the owner or occupier becomes necessary. Sub-section (6) of s. 12 however clarifies that in s. 12 occupier of any building or land means a person in lawful occupation of that building or land'. Therefore for laying down or placing any electric supply line or other work in any building, or land not dedicated to public use the consent of the owner or occupier becomes necessary. It may be noted here that in sub-s. (2) of s. 12 the expression now appearing is 'owner or occupier', but before the amendment introduced in the Act by Act 32 of 1959 the expression used was 'owner and occupier'. By the 1959 amendment the word 'and' was removed and substituted by the existing word 'or'. In view of the substitution of the word 'or' for the earlier word 'and' in sub-so (2) of s. 12, now an occupier can get supply of electricity from the licensee without the consent of the owner of the premises and if the occupier is otherwise entitled to get supply from the licensee, the licensee can give him electric connection in the premises occupied by him and for that purpose the consent of the owner is not necessary. But of course sub-so (6) of S. 12 makes it clear that the occupier must be a person in lawful occupation of the concerned building or land. In other words, a lawful occupier may obtain electric connection in his name from the licensee without requiring the consent of the owner for the purpose where the owner is a person different from the lawful occupier, but a person in unlawful occupation of a building or land cannot obtain electric connection in the premises under his occupation on the basis of his own consent. Since a lawful occupier can now obtain electric connection in the premises occupied by him on the basis of his own consent and application, without requiring or obtaining the consent of the owner for the purpose, a lawful occupier to whom electric energy is supplied in the premises occupied by him becomes a consumer within the meaning of the term used in the Indian Electricity Act. But even a person not in lawful occupation of a premises may be a consumer within the meaning of the term in S. 2(c) if he is supplied with energy by the licensee. 5. But even a person not in lawful occupation of a premises may be a consumer within the meaning of the term in S. 2(c) if he is supplied with energy by the licensee. 5. Section 20 provides that a licensee or any person duly authorised by a licensee may at any reasonable time and on informing the occupier of his intention, enter any premises to which energy is or has been supplied, for the purpose of inspection and for other purposes mentioned there-in. Sub-section (3) of s. 20 provides that where a consumer refuses to allow a licensee or any person authorised by him to enter his premises or land or after such entry refuses to allow him to perform any act which he is authorised to do or fails to give reasonable facilities for such entry or performance, the licensee may cut off the supply to the consumer after giving 24 hours' notice so long as such refusal or failure continues. The expression 'his premises' as used in sub-so (3) of S. 20 obviously refers to the consumer who may be either the owner or an occupier not being the owner of the premises. The expression 'his premises' is not confined in purport or import only to the owner of the premises but also includes within its sweep the occupier of the premises. In rule 2(af) of the Indian Electricity Rules. 1956 occupier' has been defined to mean the owner or person in occupation of the premises where energy is used or proposed to be used. The expression 'consumer's premises' has been used in Rules 30, 31 etc. of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. From all these provisions where expressions like 'consumer's premises', 'whose premises', his premises' have been used as pointed out above, it is evident that the person referred to in such expressions need not necessarily be the owner of the premises and he may be occupier also in as much as an occupier (not being owner) can also become a consumer under the licensee supplying the electricity. That is what has been also envisaged in the definition of the term 'consumer' as contained S. 2(c). That is what has been also envisaged in the definition of the term 'consumer' as contained S. 2(c). In view of that definition, if electric connection is obtained by the landlord in his own name he becomes a consumer by reason of the fact that he is supplied with energy by the licensee and at the same time his tenant who have been in occupation of the premises to which the electricity has been supplied through meter standing in the name of the landlord also comes within the sweep of the definition covered by the inclusive reference to 'any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee'. Again within the sweep of the same term the owner is also included where the tenant occupier obtains electric connection to the premises under his occupation in his own name. 6. Section 23 inter alia provides that no consumer shall, except with the consent in writing of the licensee, use energy supplied to him under one method of charging in a manner for which a higher method of charging is in force. Section 26 inter alia contains provision for installation of meter for recording the amount of energy supplied to the consumer. In connection with the consideration of the position we are dwelling upon s. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act has also a considerable play and accordingly the relevant portion of the said section is reproduced below:. "24. Discontinuance of supply to consumer neglecting to pay charge.-(1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum, other than a charge for energy, due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may, after giving not less than seven clear days' notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied, and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid but no longer. (2) * * * * * *" It is therefore clear that the legislature by enacting s. 24(1) intended to give to the licensee an additional means of collecting its dues in respect •of supply of energy from •its consumer by applying a coercive measure, without prejudice to his right to recover such dues by suit, by disconnecting the electric supply to the premises in respect of which the consumer has committed default. Section 24 authorises the licensee to discontinue electric supply to the concerned premises if the consumer has neglected to pay the charges of the electricity consumed in the premises, and mandates that the line in the concerned premises will be reconnected after the charges in respect of the energy supplied to the premises and also the expenses incurred in disconnecting and reconnecting the supply are paid. The language of s. 24(1) and the intention of the legislature behind the provisions enacted therein are very clear. The question is whether s. 22 which purports to impose an obligation on the licensee to supply energy to a person on application should be so interpreted as to impose an absolute obligation to the extent of defeating the purpose and the purport of s. 24(1). Obviously under s. 24(1) the legislature has advisedly given a right to the licensee to disconnect electric supply to a premises where the consumer has neglected to pay the charges of electric consumption in the said premises and also to discontinue the supply to the concerned premises so long the charges and also the expenses of disconnection and reconnection of supply are not paid. A tenant or occupier of the concerned premises who enjoyed the benefit of electric supply in the premises also comes within the definition of the term 'consumer' as contained in s. 2(c) .and therefore such tenant or occupier cannot obviously get supply in his own name as consumer, by-passing the liability of the consumer to make payment of the outstanding dues of electricity charges before the supply of energy is restored to the premises. If that would have been permissible the very purpose of the s. 24(1) would have been frustrated. If that would have been permissible the very purpose of the s. 24(1) would have been frustrated. Again where a consumer being the owner of a premises neglects to pay the arrear electric charges, he may very well set up his son or a third person as occupier to obtain fresh connection in the said premises by installation of a •separate meter in the name of such son or person who may apply for the purpose and the premises concerned may get fresh connection without the outstanding dues being paid. If such a situation is allowed to have .a lawful play the same may virtually render s. 24(1) nugatory and a consumer can defeat the statutory right of the licensee to withhold supply of energy to the premises till the arrear charges are paid. Therefore the logical and the wholesome interpretation of law seems to be that when supply of energy is discontinued under s. 24(1) the licensee disconnecting the line ordinarily has a right to refuse reconnection or installation or fresh connection in the same premises in the name of another person till the outstanding dues are liquidated. To the said proposition there may however be only limited exceptions, as for example, where the person applying for new connection is a purchaser of the concerned property in a revenue sale or court sale for realisation of the arrear electricity dues, etc. The decision of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in S. Luka vs. Electricity Board, AIR 1959 Kerala 199 with the ratio of which, with great respect I am in complete agreement and which I shall discuss later, rather illustrates the point. 7. Clause VI of the Schedule to the Indian Electricity Act in the 2nd proviso to sub-clause (1) also authorises a licensee to discontinue electric supply to a premises for any enumerated act or default on the part of the owner or occupier and to continue to withhold supply till the cessation of such act or default. The sweep of the concerned provisions of the said clause VI also cannot be defeated by importing new person as owner or occupier without remedying the mischief of the act or default for which the electric supply to the premises was disconnected. The sweep of the concerned provisions of the said clause VI also cannot be defeated by importing new person as owner or occupier without remedying the mischief of the act or default for which the electric supply to the premises was disconnected. Now, as we have seen, where disconnection has been made under s. 24(1) on the ground of failure to pay the charges 'in respect of consumption of energy the licensee, ordinarily and subject to limited exceptions, has the right to refuse to supply energy to the concerned premises either through the old meter or by installing a new meter in the name of new consumer till the outstanding dues for electric supply in respect of the premises concerned is paid in terms of s. 24(1). Where however after such disconnection an application is made to the licensee for separate connection and meter in the name of another person in respect of a portion of the concerned premises, it is only logical and fair that the licensee in considering such application, instead of demanding the entire outstanding amount of dues for the entire premises, should reasonably apportion' the dues and ask the new applicant to clear only such portion of the outstanding dues as would be reasonably proportionate to the consumption made or intended to be made in respect of the particular portion of the concerned premises. It is however to be noted that a licensee may discontinue supply under s. 24(1) or under the second proviso to sub-clause (1) of Clause VI only when the facts and circumstances, of the particular case warrant application of the relevant provision in terms of such provision and the right to withhold connection ceases when the conditions for reconnection in terms of such provision are complied with. 8. Decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate for the writ petitioners are discussed hereafter. Firstly he relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Ratnamaw Dasi vs. Ratan Singh Bawa, 1988 (1) CLJ 468 . There it has been held that a tenant without concurrence of the landlord can get electric connection in view of s. 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Firstly he relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Ratnamaw Dasi vs. Ratan Singh Bawa, 1988 (1) CLJ 468 . There it has been held that a tenant without concurrence of the landlord can get electric connection in view of s. 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. In that decision also the substitution of the word 'and' by the word 'or' in the expression 'owner or occupier' in s. 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act was taken notice of and it was held that the consent of the owner was not necessary for the tenant to get electric connection in his own name in the premises occupied by him. In this connection it may be mentioned here that s. 36 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 provides that if a landlord refuses or withholds his consent to the supply of electricity to a tenant, the tenant desiring to get such supply from a licensee, as defined in s. 2(h) of the Indian Electricity Act, may apply to the Controller setting out the scheme for supply. The section also authorises the Controller to permit the tenant to get the supply. The section further provides that where the Controller has given such permission the owner shall be deemed to have given the requisite consent under s. 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act and the licensee shall not be liable to the owner for trespass for steps taken for supply of electricity according to the said permission. The said s. 36 obviously was enacted in 1956 when the s. 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was in existence in its original form and was not yet amended as was done subsequently by the amending Act of 1949. In 1956 when the said s. 36, of the W.B.P.T. Act was enacted, the consent of both the owner and the .occupier of the premises was necessary under s. 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act for supply of electricity to the premises and that is why s. 36 "'ad to be incorporated in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956 so that the landlord by withholding consent could not debar the tenant from getting electric, connection to the tenanted premises in his own name. 1956 so that the landlord by withholding consent could not debar the tenant from getting electric, connection to the tenanted premises in his own name. As we have seen, subsequently however by amendment of 1959 the requirement of consent of both the owner and the occupier as earlier required in view of s. 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act was dispensed with and the consent of the occupier tenant is now sufficient to enable the licensee to supply electric energy to the concerned premises in the name of the occupier without requiring the consent of the owner or the landlord. Consequently now s. 36 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act has virtually lost its utility so far as the question of consent of the landlord is concerned. Here in our present case the question is not whether the landlord's consent is necessary for giving supply to the tenants and consequently the said decision in Ratnamala Dasi vs. Ratan Singh Bawa (supra) is not attracted in the present case. The next decision relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioners is the Single Bench decision of this court in John Earnest vs. Jogendra Chandra, AIR 1935 Cal 298. What was held in that case is that for default of the consumer in payment of electric charge for one premises disconnection of supply under s. 24 cannot be made in respect of another premises of the consumer for which the consumer is not a defaulter, This decision also therefore is not applicable in our present case. 9. The third decision referred to by the learned Advocate for the petitioners is the decision of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in S. Luka vs. Electricity Board, AIR 1959 Kerala 199. In that case the Palai Mills Limited owned money to the respondent, the Kerala Electricity Board as cost of power supplied, sales tax, etc. and the building and machinery of the company were attached and sold under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the same. The writ petitioner purchased the building and machinery in revenue sale, and after confirmation of the sale he applied for the supply of electricity for running the mill in the building. and the building and machinery of the company were attached and sold under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the same. The writ petitioner purchased the building and machinery in revenue sale, and after confirmation of the sale he applied for the supply of electricity for running the mill in the building. That was refused on the ground that the Palai Mills Limited still owed a particular sum as arrear and interest and that said sum also had to be paid before the prayer could be granted. Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act also fell for consideration in that decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. The Division Bench held that the Electricity Board could not demand the outstanding arrear dues from the writ petitioner applying for electric connection. The learned Advocate for the petitioners relies on this decision of the Kerala High Court in this case. I however find that this decision is clearly distinguishable on facts. There the Kerala High Court turned down the claim of the Electricity Board to recover arrear dues from the applicant on the ground that the applicant came into the picture by purchase in revenue sale held for the purpose of recovery of dues from a defaulting consumer and he is therefore not a person from whom any amount is or can be deemed to be due and he is not in the position of one on whom the premises have devolved by succession or voluntary transfer. As we have seen in the present case the petitioners are not claiming title by purchase in a revenue sale as was the case in the Kerala High Court decision. In the circumstances the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. Since the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 are not admitted to be lawful occupiers in the premises, they are, in any event, not entitled to any electric connection or electric meter in their names in the said premises till they can duly establish that they are lawful occupiers in the concerned premises. The writ petitioner Nos. 10. Since the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 are not admitted to be lawful occupiers in the premises, they are, in any event, not entitled to any electric connection or electric meter in their names in the said premises till they can duly establish that they are lawful occupiers in the concerned premises. The writ petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 5 are indeed admitted tenants in respect of the concerned premises and therefore they are entitled to get separate electric connection and meter in their respective names provided they make payment of the proportionate amount of the arrear dues in respect of the electric supply to the premises and for non-payment of which the electric supply to the premises has been disconnected. The respondent CESC is directed to apportion the outstanding dues reasonably payable by the said writ petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in respect of the respective portions occupied by them out of the total outstanding dues payable by the landlord for the entire premises, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within four weeks from the date of communication of this order and thereafter the CESC shall give separate connection to each of the said petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 5 or such of them as may deposit the apportioned amount of arrear dues payable by them and also comply with other conditions required to be complied with by them in accordance with law. Such connection shall be given to the concerned writ petitioners as directed above within three weeks from the payment of the apportioned amount and compliance of other lawful requirements and formalities by the concerned writ petitioners. The writ petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 will however have the liberty to apply to the CESC for electric connection if they still claim themselves to be lawful occupiers of any portion or portions of the concerned premises, and furnish proof in support of their claim and in that event the CESC will consider their case after giving an opportunity of hearing, and in the event the said writ petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 can establish that they are lawful occupiers in respect of the concerned premises or the owner of the premises gives consent for supply to them, the CESC will also apportion the outstanding dues payable by them and shall give them separate connection and meter on payment of the apportioned dues and other charges, if any, payable in accordance with law and on compliance of other formalities and requirements of law. The writ petition as well as the application for ad interim order stand disposed of accordingly. There will however be no order as to costs. 11. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking. Writ petition and application for ad interim order disposed of.