CHAMAR RAMJIBHAI KHIMABHAI Vs. MIRZA NURMAHMMADBHAI AMIRBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed for quashing and setting aside an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Wadhawan City Division, Surendranagar on November 13, 1997 in an application bearing Electricity Case No. 6 of 1997 and confirmed by the District Judge, Surendranagar on 24th July, 1998 in Civil Revision Application No.1 of 1998.

(2.) The case of the petitioner was that he was a tenant of premises which was of the ownership of respondent no.1 herein at a monthly rent of Rs.25.00. It was also his case that a hut was situated on the disputed land and since the petitioner wanted electricity connection, he made an application under Section 23A of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The said section provides that when a tenant desires supply of an electricity power at his own costs, he has to obtain consent of his landlord. If the consent is not given by the landlord, the section enables a tenant to apply to the Collector in accordance with the scheme and Collector will decide the application in accordance with law.

(3.) When the petitioner made an application under Section 23A of the Act, a notice was issued by the Deputy Collector to respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 objected to grant of application contending, inter alia, that the petitioner was not his tenant. His case was that only a part of open land was let out to the petitioner, but by taking undue advantage of his absence, the petitioner encroached over other land and also made pucca construction of hut. In other words, the petitioner was never a tenant of the portion of land for which an application for supply of electricity was made but he was a trespasser,and the application was not maintainable. The landlord further contended that as the petitioner was not a tenant, the respondent no.1 was constrained to file a civil suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vadhawan being Civil Suit No.50 of 1989 which was pending. Another Civil Suit No.43 of 1992 was also filed. He, therefore, submitted that no order under Sec.23A could be passed by the Deputy Collector.