RABINDRA SINGH Vs. THE CESC LIMITED & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated February 6, 2012 is alleging that CESC has wrongfully given supply of electricity to the private respondent using the number of premises in respect of which he and his mother and brother are joint recorded thika tenants.

(2.) Mr Srivastava appearing for the petitioner has argued as follows. CESC has refused to give a copy of the application submitted by the private respondent seeking supply. Documents produced by the private respondent with her Affidavit -in -Opposition are fabricated. Opinion of the handwriting expert produced by the petitioner with his Affidavit -in -Reply will prove this allegation made by the petitioner. The private respondent was never and still is not in occupation of any part of the premises.

(3.) MR Sanwarwala appearing for the private respondent has submitted as follows. The private respondent has filed an Affidavit -in -Opposition stating that as an occupier of the premises she applied for supply of electricity with consent of the original thika tenant (Achaibar Ram Shaw). The private respondent is still an occupier of the premises. The allegation that the private respondent has produced fabricated documents is absolutely incorrect.