AJODHYA PRASAD @ TATOA Vs. CESC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against an order dated 5th August, 2012, passed by brother Kargupta, J dismissing the writ petition bearing W. P. No.10618 (W) of 2012. The writ petitioner has come up in appeal. The prayers made in the writ petition principally were as follows:

(2.) THE case of the writ petitioner is that his father was a monthly tenant in respect of one R. T. Shed room at a monthly rental of Rs.200/- payable according to English calendar month. It is also his case that after the death of his father he became a tenant by operation of law. It is not in dispute that a suit for eviction, filed by landlady, the respondent No.4 herein, is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court at Serampore, Hooghly. It is also not in dispute that the defence of the writ petitioner has been struck out. Further undisputed fact, as would appear from the writ petition, is that the writ petitioner had applied under Section 37 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Section 37 of the aforesaid Act provides as follows:

(3.) THE C.E.S.C. Ltd., filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition reiterating the contents of their letter dated 5th April, 2012, quoted above. The respondent No.4 the landlady also filed an affidavit opposing the prayers in the writ petition. The learned Trial Court dismissed the writ petition principally on the ground that the prayer of the writ petitioner before the Civil Court for supply of electricity without permission of the landlady had already failed. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Trial Court, the writ petitioner has come up in appeal. Mr. Roy Karmakar, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the order dismissing the writ petition is patently bad considering the law laid down in the following cases: