DEBASISH BUR Vs. CESC LTD. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition dated Oct. 4, 2005 has prayed for a mandamus commanding CESC to give him supply of electricity in the discharge of its duty cast by Sec. 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that as an occupier of the premises in question the petitioner is entitled to get supply of electricity, and hence CESC could not decline to give supply. Counsel for CESC submits that CESC had no objection to give supply, but it could not install the already allotted new meter because of objection raised by the landlord, the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent has affirmed an opposition dated Nov. 14, 2005, a copy whereof was served on the petitioner. The original opposition has not been filed and none appears for the fifth respondent.

(3.) From para. 4 of the opposition, a copy whereof has been supplied by counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is in possession of the premises. It has been stated in para. 4 that the petitioner's father, since deceased, was a tenant in the premises. The fifth respondent has alleged that after death of his parents the petitioner forcibly trespassed on the premises with the assistance of anti-socials of the locality. According to the fifth respondent, since the petitioner was not residing with his father at the time he died, he cannot claim to be a tenant in the premises.