JUDGMENT : SUBHASIS DASGUPTA, J. 1. The impugned Order No. 15 dated 26.09.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 35 of 2016 rejecting the application filed by the revisionist/plaintiff under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure praying for direction upon police to render police assistance for implementation of the order passed by learned Court below on 18.3.16, so that the CESC authority could inspect the meter board and install new meter at the suit shop room without any hindrance or resistance by the opposite party/defendant in this case. 2. Certain crucial facts may be mentioned here for addressing the issue requiring decision in this case. 3. Petitioner/Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the opposite party/defendant praying for a decree so that the revisionist could not be evicted from the suit premises forcibly without due process of law with a further decree for temporary injunction restraining the landlord/defendant/opposite party from causing any obstruction or interference to use and enjoy the suit property including the electricity peacefully. Admittedly the revisionist/plaintiff was allowed to make use of the suit shop room styled as "Charu Studio" after entering into an agreement dated 1st February, 2006 giving a life period of ten years with certain terms and conditions including the rate of rent etc. The revisionist was allowed to enjoy the electricity in running the studio by the opposite party/landlord/defendant. The revisionist thereafter on the strength of such agreement and after entering into possession of the suit shop room had been enjoying the electricity thorough sub-meter, installed at the premises of opposite party/landlord till 12.2.16. The case, as made out before the Trial Court, is that the landlord/opposite party/defendant forcibly disconnected the electricity at the suit shop room on 13.2.16. Since revisionist runs photography business, a petition under Section 151 CPC was then necessarily filed by the revisionist/plaintiff praying for restoration of his electricity in the suit shop room. The Trial Court by order dated 18th March, 2016 passed an order of temporary injunction against the opposite party/landlord so that the revisionist/plaintiff could not be evicted from the suit shop room without due process of law, and further restrained opposite party/landlord from causing any disturbance, or interference to the peaceful enjoyment of the suit property till the disposal of the suit. 4. 4. The Court on the self-same date i.e. 18th March, 2016 directed the revisionist/plaintiff to apply for electric connection from the electricity provider after complying with all the required formalities upon considering the existing possession of the revisionist/plaintiff with respect to the suit shop room. The revisionist thereafter filed a separate application under Section 151 CPC praying for modification of order No.3 dated 18.3.16. In pursuance of the direction of the Trial Court, an application for new meter to CESC was taken out. The inspector on behalf of the CESC attempted to hold inspection on 13.4.16, but the same could not be matured due to the resistance of the landlord/opposite. The revisionist made a written complaint to the officer-incharge of the local police station. Since no feavourable action was undertaken at the instance of the police, the revisionist filed another application under Section 151 of the CPC before the Trial Court praying for a direction upon the officer in charge of police station to implement the order passed by the Trial Court on 18.3.16. Both the applications under Section 151 CPC were taken up for hearing together by the Trial Court and disposed of the same by order dated 1.7.16 rejecting the application on the ground that no document was filed in support of the application for getting electric connection in pursuance of the order passed earlier by the Trial Court on 18.3.16. After rejection of two such petitions under Section 151 CPC on 1.7.16., revisionist/plaintiff ultimately submitted application to CESC for new electric metre on 8.7.16. After receipt of such application, CESC sent inspection team for the purpose of installation new metre, but for the resistance being put up by the opposite party/defendant/landlord, the inspection could not be held. Intimation was then given by the CESC to revisionist on 23.7.16. In such circumstances, the revisionist/plaintiff proceeded to move another application under Section 151 of the CPC praying for direction upon the officer-in-charge of police station to render police assistance for the implementation of the order passed by the Trial Court on 18.3.16, so that inspection for the desired purpose could be held peacefully without any hindrance being caused by anybody else. The Trial Court by the impugned order rejected the said application for the contradictory statements having been made in the petition and also for the revisionist/plaintiff having applied for new metre instead of applying for new electricity connection in terms of the directions passed earlier by the Trial Court. It was specifically observed in such impugned order that the revisionist proceeded to apply for new metre, but without applying for any new electric connection in the light of the direction passed earlier by the Trial Court. Thus, according to Trial Court, praying for new electric metre is distinctively different than soliciting new electric connection in the suit shop room. 5. The opposite party/defendant contested the suit including the petition under Section 151 CPC filed so far by the revisionist/plaintiff by filing written statement as well as written objection therefor. The case of the opposite party is that the revisionist/plaintiff was inducted in the said shop room as occupier under agreement dated 1st February, 2006 for a term of ten years with some terms and conditions including the rate of rent. The said agreement having expired, the opposite party/defendant requested revisionist/plaintiff to vacate the suit shop room for the use of the son of the landlord, who is said to have been given the entire suit building including the suit shop room by his late father after executing a deed of gift for the purpose. The allegation of disconnecting the electricity from the suit shop room was completely denied with specific assertion that the revisionist/plaintiff had applied before the Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation for installation of an electric metre in spite of existing sub-metre, which was specifically introduced for the service without intimating the landlord, and for which an objection was submitted to CESC for the purpose. Since the revisionist is not a tenant under opposite party/landlord, a separate suit has been filed by the opposite party being Title suit No.89 of 2016 now pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court at Alipore with a prayer for decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit shop room under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act after serving a notice, as contemplated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The status of revisionist/plaintiff, according to opposite party is nothing but a rank trespasser, who cannot be provided with such new electric metre pending adjudication of his suit. The status of revisionist/plaintiff, according to opposite party is nothing but a rank trespasser, who cannot be provided with such new electric metre pending adjudication of his suit. 6. Learned advocate for the revisionist argued with much emphasis that the existing possession of the plaintiff/revisionist was not at all disputed and when the revisionist was in possession of the suit shop room, such person in settled possession even could restrain a wrongful owner from disturbing his settled possession, otherwise than in due process of law. 7. Learned advocate for the opposite/landlord submitted with all fairness that the landlord opposite party was not against the use of electricity in the suit shop room by revisionist, but installation of new electric meter must be confined within the suit shop room, and should not be permitted beyond the suit shop room, because if that is not checked, that would tantamount to infringement and/or encroachment of defendant's property being not permissible under any statute. Thus, in course of argument though a primary objection was put up before the CESC, when the revisionist/petitioner applied for new electric metre without duly intimating the landlord, but ultimately modified to the stand submitting to the effect that the landlord/opposite party was not against the enjoyment of electricity by the revisionist with respect to his photography business in the suit shop room. 8. Indubitably both the suit of the revisionist and the separate suit of opposite party are submitted to be tried analogously by the self-same Trail Court. The Trial Court is there to determine the issues, raised in different suits being tried analogously upon collecting evidence to be adduced by both the parties. But the photography business of the revisionist cannot be expected to run in the absence of electricity so long the matter in controversy between the parties is not set at rest. 9. Learned advocate for the revisionist in order to address the issue nor raises invited the Court to travel to a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manishi Maity vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. reported in, (2012) 3 CalHN 548: 2012 SCC Online Cal 4802: (2012) 4 LT 132: (2013) 122 IC 478 wherein and whereunder it was decided that a person in settled possession cannot be deprived of having electric connection. 10. 10. An unauthorised occupier most certainly be evicted by person having better title by due process of law, but so long as he is in occupation of the premises, his right to get electricity cannot be denied. The Division Bench of the Court had already taken notice of a decision rendered by three(3) Judges Bench of this Court in the case Abhimanya Mazumdar vs. Superintending engineer reported in, (2011) 2 CalHN 768 wherein the three(3) Judges Bench (special Bench) held that a trespasser in settled possession, if not evicted in accordance with law, should be entitled to get electricity with the aid of Section 43 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 on compliance of the terms of supply, as provided under the law. 11. By providing electricity an attempt has been shown by the Full Bench so as to ensure fulfilment of right, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right of residence being within the ambit of Articled 21 of the Constitution, a person in settled possession has every right to enjoy the property in a most meaningful manner without any hindrance or disturbance being caused by anybody else. Once the possession of revisionist/plaintiff is accepted his human right for the basic amenities of the life cannot be allowed to jeopardised in any manner whatsoever. Enjoyment of electricity is obviously within the meaning of basic amenities in our modern society. The learned Court below was confused with the fact of not having made any application for new electricity connection in terms of the direction passed earlier by the Trial Court, though the revisionist/plaintiff had already applied for a new metre in the suit shop room on the sole ground that there was already an electricity line in existence in the suit building, where the suit shop room is situated. It is evident from the application 8.7.16 that the revisionist applied for new meter before the CESC with the understanding that supply of electricity line was already existed in the suit building. New connection is ordinarily given to premises, where supply does not exist. This is a case where supply of electricity already exists, presumably from the fact that a photography business being run by the revisionist, would not have been made possible in the absence of electricity line. It was also not the case of either of the parties. 12. New connection is ordinarily given to premises, where supply does not exist. This is a case where supply of electricity already exists, presumably from the fact that a photography business being run by the revisionist, would not have been made possible in the absence of electricity line. It was also not the case of either of the parties. 12. When the revisionist made an application before the CESC on 8.7.16 praying for new metre in the suit shop room with the understanding that there was already an electric connection existing, the same was sufficient to have taken into account for enjoyment of the electricity, so long the revisionist is not vacated under due process of law. 13. The impugned order rejecting the application under Section 151 CPC thus cannot go unaltered. For the findings made hereinabove, the revisional application succeeds. 14. The impugned order dated 26.9.16 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 35 of 2016 is set aside. 15. The opposite party/landlord/defendant would not cause any obstruction, disturbance or hindrance from his side or by his agents in carrying out the inspection, to be held by CESC people, the intimation of which shall be made available by the revisionist well in advance to opposite party upon ascertaining the date of inspection by CESC people, and in the event if any such resistance is put up, either by the defendant/opposite party or his agents, the revisionist/petitioner shall be at his liberty to carry out the order with the police assistance, the cost which shall be borne by the revisionist. 16. It is made clear that the very purpose of enjoyment of the electricity with the installation of new metre inclusive of the inspection necessary therefor would be strictly restricted and/or confined within the suit shop room, and not to any portion beyond the suit shop room, and further enjoyment of electricity by way of new meter shall not create any equity in favour of revisionist/plaintiff in the pending suit being analogously tried with the suit of defendant/opposite party's suit. The installation of new meter so as to facilitate enjoyment of electricity in the suit shop room will however not create any embargo or inconvenience on the part of the learned Trial Judge to proceed with the suits ahead being tried analogously in accordance with law, and an honest effort may be made by the learned Trial Judge to conclude the trial expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment, unless it is unavoidable giving sufficient opportunity to either of the parties to this case, for effective determination of matter in controversy between them. The revisional application thus stands disposed of. 17. Urgent certified copy of this judgment and order if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.