UNION OF INDIA Vs. JEETAL JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this second appeal is with regard to the power of the Telephone Department to collect arrears of rental for the period during which telephone stood disconnected. Ths suit was filed by the respondent for a mandatory injunction directing the appellant Union of India to give service connection to his telephone at his residence without demanding payment of rentals of Rs. 1588-25ps. for the period during which, the telephone was used by a third party and was completely disconnected so far as the plaintiff was concerned. Both the lower Courts have decreed the suit and restrained the Union of India from collecting the arrears of rentals for the period during which the telephone stood dis-connected and stood allotted to a third party

(2.) In this appeal, it is contended by Sri K. Jagannadha Rao, learned standing counsel tor the Central Government that arrears of rental for the dis-connected period are payable under Rule 169 (1) of the Trunk and Rent Account Rules. It reads as follows :

(3.) It is true that according to the said Rule, the Department is entitled to claim the rent for the period during which the telephone stood disconnected. But, on the facts of the present oase, it is admitted that during the interrugnum for which the telephone stood disconnected it was alloted to a third party, and the said third party used the same. It cannot be denied that rental for that period has not been collected from the said third party, The Telephone Department would bs entitled to collect the arrears of rents from the original subscriber whose telephone is disconnected, provided the Department was, during the period of disconnection, ready and willing to give the recomection. In the present case, the Department had rented out the use of this particular telephone to another subscriber from whom the rents have been collected. Under the guise of the above Rule, the Department cannot collect rents twice over, for the same period from two subscribers. That does not appear to be the true intention behind the Rule. The view taken by the lower Courts appears to be correct.