(1.) The present petition which has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the City Deputy Collector Ahmedabad in C. D. C. Electric Case No. 64 of 1981. The present petitioner filed an application under sec. 23 A of the Bombay Rent Control Act and alleged that he was the lawful tenant of the premises under his occupation belonging to the respondent No. 3. He had applied for an independent electric connection but as the respondent No. 3 did not give his consent thereto he gave an application under sec. 23A of the Bombay Rent Act to the City Deputy Collector. The City Deputy Collector after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that as the disputes between the parties are pending in the Small Cause Court and as it is the allegation of the respondent that the petitioner is a trespasser no application under sec. 23A would be tenable. According to the learned City Deputy Collector if the electricity supply was discontinued the petitioner could have approached the Court under sec. 24(2) of the Rent Act for restoration of the essential supplies. The petitioner has filed an application under sec. 24(2) which is yet not decided.
(2.) As the learned City Deputy Collector rejected the prayer of the petitioner the petitioner has approached this court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Mr. Upadhyay the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner urged that on the record of the case numerous documents were produced by the petitioner showing that he was a tenant of the said premises for number of years. Initially his father was inducted in the said premises as tenant and while no separate rent receipts are produced by him for the entire period it appears that the respondents had given such receipts in a diary book maintained by the father of the petitioner The xerox copies whereof are produced on the record of the case The said diary is produced in some other litigation pending between the parties. While the said receipts purported to have been given by the respondent No. 3 to the father of the petitioner cannot be said to have been proved under the rules of evidence the respondents have not challenged the said document as being spurious and their contention was that the petitioner is a trespasser.