TAPAS DEY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application praying for a direction upon the respondent/electricity authorities to grant new electricity connection to the petitioner at the premises as mentioned in the petition.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted as follows. The writ petitioner was a tenant in the premises being a plot of land forming part of Rs..00Plot No. 339, Sheet No. 14 recorded in Rs..00Khatian No. 493/1 under Mouja Dabgram, SMC Ward No. 35, P.S. New Jalpaiguri, District- Jalpaiguri, owned by the private respondent and her husband (since deceased). The tenanted portion is a flat measuring about 900 square feet in the ground floor of a three storied building. On 25/6/2012, the private respondent and her husband agreed to sell the premises to the petitioner and received an amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs as an advance part consideration against a total consideration amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs. A written agreement was executed in this regard. The petitioner gradually paid the entire consideration amount. After the death of her husband, the private respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession of the said premises from the petitioner in 2021 suppressing the real facts and falsely claiming that the petitioner and his wife were permissive occupiers in the said premises. The said suit being Title Suit No. 173 of 2021 is still pending. After filing the said suit, the private respondent threatened the petitioner on several occasions that she would disconnect the electricity connection at the said premises. Despite the petitioner's sending a legal notice requesting her not to do so, on 6/1/2022 the private respondent disconnected the electricity connection at the said premises. The petitioner was thus constrained to apply for a new electricity connection before the WBSEDCL by formal application on 10/1/2022 and a written communication on 15/1/2022. By its letter dtd. 3/2/2022, the WBSEDCL informed the petitioner that they had inspected the premises and found him in possession. Yet, they refused to give new electricity connection to the premises for want of documents. Since 6/1/2022 the petitioner, his pregnant wife and ailing mother are living in the said premises without electricity. The petitioner has been admittedly in settled actual physical possession in the said premises for more than 20 years and is, thus, entitled to get electricity connection in terms of Sec. 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In fact, the petitioner is in settled possession or effective possession without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. Reliance is placed on Rame Gowda (D) by L.Rs..00vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs.,.00 AIR 2004 SC 4609 , Munshi Ram vs. Delhi Administration, (1968) 2 SCR 455 , Puran Singh vs. The State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 518 and Ram Rattan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 188 . Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in Abhimanyu Mazumder vs. The Superintendent Engineer and Another, AIR 2011 Cal 64.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5 submitted as follows. First, the son and the daughter of the private respondent were not made parties to the writ petition. Secondly, the contention of the petitioner regarding his entitlement to possess the purported tenanted portion is disputed. The petitioner had illegally occupied the ground floor of the premises and also did some illegal construction without the permission of the private respondent no. 5. Thus, the petitioner is an illegal occupier of the said premises. The petitioner has not shown any document to prove that he was a tenant as alleged by him in the writ petition. Therefore, he is not entitled to get electricity connection under Sec. 43 of the Electricity Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Anjali Metia and Others vs. State of West Bengal State Electricity, 2006 (4) CHN 433 , Samsul Haque Mollick vs. CESC Ltd., AIR 2006 Cal 73 and Debadas Biswas vs. West Bengal State Electricity, AIR 2008 Cal 29 . In the alternative, the respondent shall always be at liberty to take appropriate steps to recover possession from the petitioner in accordance with law.