JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. As the learned advocates appearing for all the parties requested and consented, the petition was taken up for final consideration. 1.1 Therefore, Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mrs. Mauna Bhatt waives rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Learned advocate Ms. Lilu Bhaya waives rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5, whereas learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya waives rule on behalf of respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 28.01.2015 and the decision reflected therein of the respondent-Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited, whereby the Vij Company refused to restore electricity supply to the petitioner. A declaration is also prayed for that the action of the respondent-Vij Company in disconnecting power supply is illegal. 2.1 The premises at which the petitioner is desirous to have electricity supply restored is revenue survey No. 537-P admeasuring 1 Guntha at Lathi, District Amreli, being the place of petrol pump run by the petitioner upon a dealership for the same granted by respondent No. 1-Indian Oil Corporation on 16.11.2010. Refusal to restore the connection by the Vij Company is on the ground that respondent No. 6 who is subsequent purchaser-cum-new owner of the premises objected to giving of connection and that the petitioner was required to produce No Objection and fresh agreement with his consent so as to be entitled to get the electricity connection. 3. The relevant facts would help to understand the controversy. Land bearing revenue survey No. 537-P admeasuring 1 Guntha was owned by one Sharad Ratilal Parekh; the partnership firm M/s. Subh Laxmi Petroleum Company consisted of said Sharad Ratilal Parekh and another partner Himatbhai Ramjibhai Sangrajka. They executed an agreement of lease for a period of 20 years commencing from 01.12.2003 in favour of Indian Oil Corporation-respondent No. 1 herein. The said lease agreement is in operation and the period expires in the year 2023. The present petitioner is a grantee of dealership by respondent No. 1-Indian Oil Corporation pursuant to agreement dated 16.11.2010. Under the said dealership, the petitioner is having a petrol pump to run at the place and in capacity of the dealer, the petitioner is in possession and occupation of the said site/premises/land. The present petitioner is a grantee of dealership by respondent No. 1-Indian Oil Corporation pursuant to agreement dated 16.11.2010. Under the said dealership, the petitioner is having a petrol pump to run at the place and in capacity of the dealer, the petitioner is in possession and occupation of the said site/premises/land. It further appears that private respondent No. 6 claims to be the donee of the land in question by virtue of gift deed claims to have been executed on 19.08.2013 by said Sharad Ratilal Parekh. The case of the petitioner, however, is that the said transaction was created for seeking possession of the land and the same is not bona fide. Be as it may. 3.1 The petitioner has been running his dealership in the name of M/s. Om Shiv Petroleum. Upon payment of necessary charges, respondent-Electricity Company granted electricity connection to said dealer M/s. Om Shiv Petroleum-the petitioner. After the electricity connection already made available to the petitioner dealer, it appears that in light of application dated 19.07.2014 made by private respondent No. 6 herein, the Electricity Company disconnected the electricity power supply on 15.09.2014. The aggrieved petitioner made an application/representation dated 19.09.2014 to the company. It appears that the private respondent filed Special Civil Application No. 16839 of 2014 praying against Electricity Company not to re-grant the connection to the present petitioner-respondent No. 4 therein. This Court by order dated 20.11.2014 disposed of the petition requiring respondent-Electricity Company to consider and decide the representation after giving opportunity of hearing to both. 3.2 The impugned order dated 28.01.2015 came to be passed by the Electricity Company after the aforesaid directions by this Court. The aggrieved petitioner has questioned the validity of the said order on the ground inter alia that the company has no authority to disconnect the supply and it ought to have reconnected the electricity to the petitioner. 3.3 In the background of the controversy and the objection on part of private respondent-the subsequent purchaser to restore the electricity to the petitioner, is an event of institution of Regular Civil Suit No. 26 of 2014. Private respondent No. 6 has filed the said civil suit before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Lathi. The plaintiff-respondent No. 6 prayed for decree of election against Indian Oil Corporation on the ground of Section (13)(1)(g) and 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel, Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Private respondent No. 6 has filed the said civil suit before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Lathi. The plaintiff-respondent No. 6 prayed for decree of election against Indian Oil Corporation on the ground of Section (13)(1)(g) and 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel, Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. It is stated that the present petitioner made an application to be impleaded in the suit and is impleaded as party defendant. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Mrugen Purohit for the petitioner submitted that non-restoration of electricity supply by the company was not only based on invalid reason, but submitted he, the company is enjoined to give power supply in accordance with Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It was submitted that the petitioner holds and occupies the premises in capacity of dealer of respondent No. 1-Corporation and the dealership agreement subsists. He submitted that the private respondent No. 6 has no right to resist to the restoration of electricity connection and mere pendency of civil suit by the said private respondent against the Corporation is no ground, either for the said private respondent to object to or that the Electricity Company to refuse to restore the electricity connection. He submitted that the electricity connection was already granted at the premises to the dealer-occupant of lessee Indian Oil Corporation and only because upon objected by new purchaser, the supply was suddenly snapped. 4.1 Learned senior counsel Mr. Manish Bhatt appearing for respondent No. 1-Corporation which happens to be the lessee of the land under the lease agreement valid upto 2023 as noted above, submitted that respondent No. 1-Corporation as well as the petitioner dealer are able to exercise their respective lawful rights including for having electricity supply in respect of the land in question. He emphasized that the lease agreement as well as dealership agreement both are valid and subsisting. He additionally relied on stipulation in the original lease agreement dated 01.12.2003 inter alia submitting that the lessee-Indian Oil Corporation had a right of refusal in the event if the original land holder-lessor proposes to sell the land. He, in other words, supported the case of the petitioner for restoration of electricity supply. 4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya appearing for private respondent No. 6-subsequent purchaser-cum-new owner was vehement in his submission. He, in other words, supported the case of the petitioner for restoration of electricity supply. 4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya appearing for private respondent No. 6-subsequent purchaser-cum-new owner was vehement in his submission. According to him, respondent No. 6, in capacity of owner of the premises is entitled to object to grant of electricity and without his no objection, the company cannot restore, nor the petitioner is entitled to get supply of electricity. He relied on factum of pendency of civil suit instituted against respondent No. 1-Corporation. He further submitted that the petitioner himself got impleaded in the said suit; it was his submission that the petitioner could have prayed for necessary orders in the suit itself. Learned advocate for respondent No. 6 relied on Section 23A of the Bombay Rent Act to submit that it was an alternative remedy for the petitioner to seek the very relief claimed in the present petition. He therefore submitted that on that count also, the petitioner is not entitled to any redressal in the present petition. 4.3 Learned advocate for respondent No. 6 made a further grievance that respondent No. 1-lessee has not been paying lease rent and the rent amount is due. He submitted that giving of power supply to the petitioner would run the risk for respondent No. 6 if the petitioner fails to pay the electricity charges regularly and in that event, liability would be fastened on respondent No. 6 at later stage. It was harped that when the suit is pending and the decree of eviction is prayed for in the suit, the petitioner may not be allowed the electricity supply, for, according to learned advocate, it would create right in his favour and would prejudice the case of the plaintiff-respondent No. 6 in the suit. 4.4 Learned advocate Ms. Lilu Bhaya for the Electricity Company submitted that the company stayed its hands, because of objection came forth from the purchaser-new owner of the land, but for which the company has no objection to restore the electricity as may be directed by the Court. 5. At the outset, it has to be observed that Regular Civil Suit No. 26 of 2014 pending between the parties is a distinct legal proceedings to be tried for the respective rights of the parties thereto on the basis of the evidence which may be led in the trial. 5. At the outset, it has to be observed that Regular Civil Suit No. 26 of 2014 pending between the parties is a distinct legal proceedings to be tried for the respective rights of the parties thereto on the basis of the evidence which may be led in the trial. The prayer for electricity supply to the petitioner is required to be considered in light of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. It cannot be linked for its merits with the civil litigation pending between the parties, where no interim orders have been operating. Nor, there is any substance in the submission of learned advocate for respondent No. 6 that Section23A of the Rent Act is in the nature of an alternative remedy without resorting to which, this petition is not liable to be entertained. The provisions of Section 23A of the Rent Act cannot be perceived as an alternative remedy to dislodge the present petition. It is not the alternative remedy or even a remedy for the petitioner for which this petition could be dismissed, if the petitioner is able to otherwise establish his claim for restoration of electricity supply under the provisions of the Electricity Act. 5.1 The contentions of the parties with regard to their inter-se right in the realm of landlord-tenant relationship vis-à-vis. sub lessee, that is, the petitioner dealer and the respective contentions of the parties have to be left to be tried in the pending suit and they have nothing to do with the merits of the prayer in this petition. This is more particularly when no interim or any such other order has been operative in the said civil litigation on the basis of which the prayer of the petitioner for having the electricity supply could be countered. In this view, the contention of learned senior counsel about the condition in the lease agreement about the right to refuse is also not relevant for the purpose of present controversy. 6. Allaying the apprehension of respondent No. 6 that the petitioner may not regularly pay the electricity charges, learned advocate for the petitioner made a statement that if the petitioner is given the electricity supply, he would pay the electricity charges regularly as per law and that he is ready to file such an undertaking before this Court. 6. Allaying the apprehension of respondent No. 6 that the petitioner may not regularly pay the electricity charges, learned advocate for the petitioner made a statement that if the petitioner is given the electricity supply, he would pay the electricity charges regularly as per law and that he is ready to file such an undertaking before this Court. As far as the grievance of respondent No. 6 that lease rent is due, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1 Corporation made a statement that no such rent is due and the entire amount till date stands deposited with the trial court in the suit proceedings. These aspects are noted only in order to underline that the apprehension expressed by learned advocate for respondent No. 6 is misplaced and are taken care of. 7. Reverting to the crux of the controversy, the petitioner is a dealer of respondent No. 1 Corporation. There is a dealership agreement subsisting and validly operating in favour of the petitioner for running the petrol outlet. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is in possession of the said site/land/premises, that his petrol outlet stands thereon to be run in accordance with the dealership agreement. The Indian Oil Corporation is holding the premises in capacity of lessee under a valid and subsisting lease. 7.1 Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as under, "43. Duty to supply on request (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub-stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission: Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area. Explanation.-For the purposes of this subsection, "application" means the application complete in all respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, alongwith documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances. Explanation.-For the purposes of this subsection, "application" means the application complete in all respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, alongwith documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances. (2) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-section (1): Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission. (3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default." 7.2 On bare reading of the aforesaid section, an occupier of the premises is entitled to have the electricity connection at his premises. A corresponding statutory duty is cast on the Electricity Company to provide the electricity connection in accordance with the aforesaid provision. 8. In Chandu Khamaru vs. Nayan Malik and Ors. [ (2011) 12 SCC 314 ], the Supreme Court held that in view of sub-section (1) of Section 42, every distribution licencee has a duty to develop and maintain distribution system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions of the Act and further that sub-section (1) of Section 43 casts a statutory duty on the distribution licencee to supply electricity to an owner or occupier of any premises located in the area of supply of electricity of such licencee, if such person applies for the same. In other words, a corresponding right is on the owner or occupier of the premises to obtain such electricity supply from the licencee. 8.1 In another decision in Meena Chaudhary @ Dr. Meena P.N. Singh vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. [2013 (4) CLJ 111 S.C.], decision in Chandu Khamaru (supra) was relied on and it was observed thus, "6. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is very clear that it is the duty of every licencee to give supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of any premises within its area. [See Chandu Khamaru vs. Nayan Malik and others, (2011) 12 SCC 314 ]. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is very clear that it is the duty of every licencee to give supply of electricity to the owner or occupier of any premises within its area. [See Chandu Khamaru vs. Nayan Malik and others, (2011) 12 SCC 314 ]. In this case, we find that instead of ensuring that electricity is supplied to the occupant of the premises in question in accordance with the provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the respondent No. 1 is taking resort to a defence to ensure that electricity is not supplied in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The facts are very clear that there was a meter installed and the supply of electricity was to a registered consumer. If for some reason or other, the meter is no longer there and the registered consumer is no longer willing for the supply of electricity, the occupier of the premises is entitled as of her own right under Section 43 to supply of electricity and respondent No. 1 should have ensured that such supply was resorted to the petitioner after complying with all necessary formalities as provided under this Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder." 9. The capacity of the present petitioner as occupier of the premises in question stands absolute at present. There is no tainting circumstances which discount the legal occupation of the petitioner. There is no gainsaying that the petitioner is an "occupier" within the meaning and for the purposes of Section43 of the Electricity Act to be entitled to have electricity connection at its premises. At the said premises, the electricity connection was already given by the Electricity Company to the dealer, which came to be discontinued upon an objection raised by respondent No. 6-new owner. The petitioner is within his legal right to get it restored. 10. For the facts and reasons recorded above, the objection by respondent No. 6 against restoration of power supply to the petitioner by reviving the said connection can hardly be sustained. The decision on part of the company to refuse the restoration of supply of electricity in favour of the petitioner has to be quashed. It is set at naught. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed as under, (i) Impugned decision of the Electricity Company reflected in the communication dated 28.01.2015 is hereby set aside. The decision on part of the company to refuse the restoration of supply of electricity in favour of the petitioner has to be quashed. It is set at naught. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed as under, (i) Impugned decision of the Electricity Company reflected in the communication dated 28.01.2015 is hereby set aside. (ii) Respondent Electricity Company and its authorities Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are directed to restore the electricity supply connection (Customer Nos. 83301/00041/0 & 83301/00042/8) to the petitioner at the premises in question within 15 days from today. (iii) The petitioner shall continue to pay the electricity charges in respect of use of the connection regularly. (iv) The grant of connection/restoration of the power to the petitioner as above shall abide by the outcome of the Regular Civil Suit No. 26 of 2014 pending before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Lathi and determination of rights of parties. 12. It is clarified that the aforesaid order allowing restoration of the electricity connection to the petitioner shall not be an influencing aspect for contentions of any of the parties in the civil suit. 13. This Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the controversy pending in the suit. Any observation in this order shall not be construed as an expression on merits as the controversy considered in the present petition was only in respect of connection-cum-restoration of electricity supply to the petitioner. 14. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Direct service is permitted.