ASST ENGINEER Vs. ENTHEENKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Electricity Board and the Assistant Engineer of the Board, who were defendants 3 and 2 in O. S. No. 312 of 1974. are the appellants in the second appeal. The plaintiff was a tenant of a building, of which the owner was the 1st defendant. The lease arrangement commenced on 1-11-1971. It is alleged in the plaint that the 1st defendant bad installed a 10 Horse Power Electric Motor in the building with Huller and that consequent thereto the rent was enhanced. There appears to have been some disputes between the landlord and the tenant. It is unnecessary to refer to those matters in this second appeal. The 1st defendant applied to the Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Board for disconnecting the electric connection to the building. The plaintiff protested In view of the apprehension about the possible disconnection by the 2nd defendant, the suit was filed for an injunction for restraining the 2nd defendant and officers of the Board from effecting any such disconnection as had been attempted earlier. The dispute raised by the 1st defendant in the suit is not relevant for the purpose of the second appeal. The Electricity Board and the Assistant Engineer contested the suit, mainly on the ground that the 1st defendant was the consumer of electrical energy, that the Board and its officers were competent to effect disconnection when a request in that behalf came from the consumer. Defendants 2 and 3 pleaded ignorance of the arrangement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.

(2.) The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was a consumer and consequently the court had power to issue an order of injunction, to prevent injustice, which would have been effected by the disconnection of electricity to the premises of the plaintiff. That court noted that the 1st defendant did not participate in the trial and consequently he had been declared ex parte. It was true that the plaintiff was a tenant. On an examination of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Trial Court took the view that the plaintiff was a consumer, as he was the occupier of the premises and was using the electrical energy supplied by defendants 2 and 3. In reaching that conclusion, it relied on the decision of the Patna High Court reported in Bhagalpur Electric Company v. Hari Prasad, AIR 1938 Patna 15. The Board and the Assistant Engineer carried the matter in appeal. The court below affirmed the decision of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Apparently in view of the general importance of the question, defendants 2 and 3 have approached this court filing the Second Appeal.

(3.) The only question raised by counsel at the time of the hearing of the appeal related to the construction of the term 'consumer' occurring under S.2(c) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. According to counsel, a person who had no ownership whatever in respect of the premises to which electricity was supplied, could not be termed as a consumer, and the courts had to deal with and act upon the term 'consumer' as provided in the Electricity Supply Act, 1950.