JUDGMENT Sinha, A.C.J. This appeal is directed a judgment and order dated 13.5.98 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the application filed by the private respondents herein was allowed. According to the respondents, they are the legal heirs and representatives of the tenant of the appellant herein. An application in terms of Section 36 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act had been filed by them praying for grant of supply of electrical energy to them on the ground that they are the legal heirs and representatives of the tenant, Gopal Chandra Dey, since deceased. The said application was allowed on the basis of a Police Report by the Rent Controller where against an appeal was preferred by the appellant herein before the learned District Judge, Alipore. The said appeal was transferred to the 5th Additional District Judge, Alipore. The appeal Court allowed the said appeal and remitted the matter back to the Rent Controller. It is stated that the said matter is still pending. In the meantime the private respondents herein allegedly in collusion and conspiracy with the authorities of the C.E.S.C Ltd., obtained the electrical connection. Questioning the grant of such electrical connection by the C.B.S.C Ltd., the appellant herein filed a writ application praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs :- A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to remove the supply of electricity which was given to the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 illegally in the shop room at premises No. 210/1A, Rashbehari Avenue, Calcutta - 700029 forthwith ; (b). A writ is the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from giving any supply of electricity to respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in the shop room at premises No. 210/1A. Rashbehari Avenue, Calcutta-29 so - long as the nature of occupation of the said respondent No. 4 to 8 in respect of the shop room is finally determined in the pending proceeding under Section 36 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act." 2. The learned trial Judie dismissed the said writ application holdings :- "In India for the last 150 years the Rule had been that no one can be evicted without due process of law. The learned trial Judie dismissed the said writ application holdings :- "In India for the last 150 years the Rule had been that no one can be evicted without due process of law. There is no assertion anywhere in the writ petition that any proceeding has been initiated by the writ petitioner to evict the respondent Nos. 4 to 8. In any event, at least upto now, no process of law has yet directed eviction of the respondent Nos. 4 to 8. Until the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are evicted in due process of law from the premises in question, they should be permitted to live in the premises as human. At the admen of 21st century it cannot be said that a human should be compelled to live in darkness since his occupation is claimed to be illegal before an adjudication to that effect is made." 3. Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised a short question in support of this appeal. The learned Counsel submits that keeping in view the fact that the question as to whether the private respondents are lawful occupiers within the meaning of sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 or not is pending decision before the Rent Controller and in that view of the matter, the C.E.S.C. Ltd., could not have granted electrical connection in their favour. The learned Counsel also submits that the learned trial Judge erred in holding that for the purpose of electrical connection a proceeding for eviction is necessary. It is further submitted that in any event the learned trial Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ application. 4. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents of the other hand submits that the appellant himself has filed a suit for eviction against the private respondents wherein issue has been raised as to whether they are licensee or the tenants. However, no document in support of the said contention has been produced before us. 5. However having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the fact that the private respondents are enjoying benefit of supply of electrical energy and further in view of the undertaking liven before us by Mr. 5. However having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the fact that the private respondents are enjoying benefit of supply of electrical energy and further in view of the undertaking liven before us by Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the private respondents on their behalf that all payments towards consumption of electrical energy shall be made by his clients, the impugned order need not be interfered with but the same is modified only to the extent that such electrical connection shall be subject to the final determination of the proceeding under Section 36 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 6. The Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the said matter at an early date and preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. 7. It is however clarified that in any event the private respondents withdraw the application, the same amounts to dismissal. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the private respondents submits that Civil Revision is also pending between the parties which is marked as C.O. No. 1124 of 1996. This appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned observation. Ansari, J : I agree.