GHADHVI JITENDRA ISHWARDAS Vs. B K THAKKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner made an application dated 11/03/1992 to the respondent No. 1 for permission to have electric connection in the suit premises. Stating that the respondent No. 3 is the landlady and she was not giving her consent for such new electric connection. The application stated that the petitioner had been residing in the suit premises from 1/06/1988. It was stated that the landlady had got the electric meter removed by giving an application to the respondent No. 2- Gujarat Electricity Board and, thus, deprived the petitioner of the basic and essential amenity. The petitioner had asked for permission to have a new connection and asked for "no objection" from the landlady and she had refused to give such consent. The petitioner submitted that the electricity is the basic necessity and without the same, he was suffering grave hardships and he, therefore, prayed that new electricity connection be given. This was an application under Sec. 23A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The said section reads as follows :

(2.) On issuance of the notice, the landlady objected to the application being granted stating that the petitioner was not a tenant of respondent No. 3 and that litigation in the Civil Court was pending.

(3.) The petitioner submitted that he had been paying monthly rent of Rs. 325/- and the landlady had not been issuing any receipt. The petitioner was in occupation since 1988. In the affidavit-in-reply, it is contended that the petitioner never was or is the tenant of the respondent No. 3 and that the petitioner is a trespasser. However, it is admitted that the petitioner's father was allowed to occupy the premises, but it is stated that it was for a short duration as the petitioner's father was evicted from Swaminarayan temple and thereafter the father did not vacate the premises and, therefore, the landlady had to file a Special Civil Suit for possession against the father and son. In the suit, the son has claimed that he is the tenant.