DEBABRATA BISWAS Vs. DR. SUDHANGSU SEKHAR MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application relates to supply of water to the suit premises. While the plaintiff would contend that the petitioner is a licensee, the petitioner would contend that he is a tenant. The petitioner also has suffered a decree and an appeal against such decree is pending before the Appeal Court. At this stage an application was filed for appointment of a Commissioner so as to effect of supply of water to the suit premises.

(2.) THE Commissioner held an inspection and filed a report on 22nd November, 2005 wherein after inspection he found that at the time of inspection the tap connection in the plaintiff's premises was not functioning. He also found that there is a concrete water tank and upon opening the lid he found some water which is about 2' ft. deep. He also found that five connections from the tank fixed permanently and each connection bear individual device which was described by the parties as controlling device. The respective devices were also found functional and he was of the view that water could be suspended or started by any person. Considering the said report the application for supply of water at the instance of the petitioner was rejected. Apparently no infirmity could be found from the reading of the order but the problem is a practical problem which needs a practical solution. To avoid all controversy the petitioner is permitted to have his separate water connection from the underground tank and accordingly in presence of the Advocate -Commissioner who has already filed his report, the petitioner would be permitted to consume 500 litres of water from the water tank by installation of one or two Polythene tank to which the plaintiff would not object.

(3.) MR . Ganguly, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party assures that the opposite party would not cause any inconvenience to the petitioner for the purpose of installation of the said tank or to consume the water in any manner whatsoever.