Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 756 (CAL)

Sushil Kumar Nath v. Tapas Mitra

2008-07-30

TAPAS KUMAR GIRI

body2008
Judgment : TAPAS KUMAR GIRI, J. (1.) THIS revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was directed against the order dated 5th June, 2003 passed by the Learned District Judge at Burdwan in Civil Revision No. 20 of 2003 affirming the order No. 103 dated February 25, 2003 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 4th Court at burdwan in Title Suit No. 100 of 2002. (2.) THE fact of the present case is that the petitioners/plaintiffs brought Title Suit no. 224 of 1998 against the opposite parties/defendants in 2nd Court Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Burdwan for eviction on the ground of subletting and parting with possession for defaulting payment of rents and reasonable requirements and other grounds. The said suit was transferred to the 4th Court Civil Judge (Junior division) at Burdwan renumbered as Title Suit No. 100 of 2002. (3.) AFTER appearance, the opposite parties filed separate application under Section 17 (1) and Section 17 (2) and (2a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and the petitioner contested the latter application by filing a written objection. (4.) THE defendants on January 7, 2002 filed an application praying for direction upon the plaintiffs/petitioners to take effective steps in the matter of supply of electricity through service connection No. 2bd/596. The plaintiffs contested the said application by filing a written objection. The Learned Trial Judge after hearing directed the plaintiffs to restore electric supply to the tenant premises. The plaintiffs filed a revisional application under Section 115a of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Learned District Judge Vide Civil Revision No. 20 of 2003. The Learned district Judge dismissed the said revisional application on contest. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed the present application under Article 227 of the constitution of India for setting aside the said order. (5.) THE propriety of such order is now under challenge in this revisional application. It is to be considered how far the Learned Trial Court was justified in allowing the application filed on behalf of the defendants/opposite parties. It is admitted by both the parties that the suit for eviction is pending before the Learned civil Judge (Junior Division) 4th Court and during pendency of the above suit the defendants/opposite parties filed the application on January 7, 2002 to take effective steps to supply electricity through service connection bearing No. 2bd/596. (6.) LEARNED advocate Mr. It is admitted by both the parties that the suit for eviction is pending before the Learned civil Judge (Junior Division) 4th Court and during pendency of the above suit the defendants/opposite parties filed the application on January 7, 2002 to take effective steps to supply electricity through service connection bearing No. 2bd/596. (6.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the original suit was filed under the old act i.e., West bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The application dated 07. 01. 2002 was filed by the opposite parties/defendants under the new act i.e., West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1977. In both the acts the essential service should be disposed of by the Rent controller as per Section 34 of Act 1956 and under Sections 27 and 35 of the Act 1977 and there is no scope of the Civil Court to interfere in the matter which is vested upon the Rent Controller and as such the present order passed by the Learned district at Burdwan in Civil Revision No. 20 of 2002 as well as the order dated February 25 of 2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) are liable to be set aside. (7.) MR. Bidyut Banerjee Learned Advocate on behalf of the opposite parties has contended that without the consent of the owner the tenant has the right for electric connection and there is no scope of the landlord to stand in the way where the supply of electricity is a matter between the occupier and the licensee. In support of the contention Learned Advocate has cited a case law reported in AIR 1990 Calcutta P. 26 (Ratnamala Dasi and Ors. V. Ratan Singh Bawa). (8.) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Banerjee also contended that there is no necessity to go to the merits of the present revisional application. (9.) HEARD the Learned Advocates for the parties and considered the materials on record including the order impugned. (10.) IN a case Ratnamala Dasi (supra) it is observed by this Court "supply of electricity has now become a matter between the occupier and the licensee under the electricity Act and the landlord as the owner cannot ordinarily stand in the way." (11.) IN the present application the opposite parties/defendants filed the application before the Learned Court below for essential service of electricity. In view of the above decision there is no scope to interfere in the said order passed by the Learned district Judge at Burdwan as well as the order of the Learned Civil Judge (Junior division) 4th Court, Burdwan. (12.) THE present revisional application fails and it is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Interim order passed in connection with the above revisional application is hereby vacated.