Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1405 (JHR)

Gour Chandra Saha v. Parimal Kumar Banerjee

2012-09-17

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
ORDER By the Court.--Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. It appears that the appellant has preferred this LPA unnecessarily in view of the fact that in the writ petition being WP(C) No. 168/2012 the petitioners who are tenants in the property of the appellant, though sought for only relief of getting a new water connection and the learned single Judge has only passed order that the petitioners may submit a fresh application which may be considered by the concerned authority. 3. Learned counsel for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has submitted that Municipal Corporation has already considered application and granted fresh water connection to the writ petitioners. 4. Once the premises has been let out to the tenant the landlord has no right to put any obstruction in getting electricity and water connection at the tenant's cost and there cannot be any reason for raising objection by the landlord in such matters which may be one of the way of putting obstruction in peaceful enjoyment of the let out property as well as which may result into unnecessary dispute and also unnecessary litigation. One of such example is present LPA. This LPA is an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that thrice the writ petitioners have approached this Court and the writ petition have been dismissed. If it is so, it is a grave case where the tenant has to approach the Court for getting the basic amenities for living. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the tenant himself is not residing in the premises in question and a suit for eviction is pending against the tenant. In that situation also, landlord has no right to obstruct in getting electricity and water connection by the tenants. 6. Since the petitioners had to approach this Court thrice earlier and fourth time by filing this petition and they have been dragged to this Court by filing LPA by the landlord, therefore, the LPA of the landlord-appellant, which is an abuse of the process of the Court, is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5.000/- to be payable to the writ petitioners. Appeal dismissed.