MD ISHA HAQUE Vs. ASADUR RAHIMAN HAZARIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 15.2,93 of the Assistant District Judgp No 1, Guwahati, dismissing the Misc Appeal Mb 1/90 of the petitioner against the order dated 6.12.89 of the Sadar Munsiff, Guwahati, in Misc (J) Case No. 178/88.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 116/88 in the Court of the Sadar Munsiff Guwahati against the petitioner, the Assam State Electricity Board (For short, the 'ASEB'), opposite party No. 2 as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer, ASEB, Electric Sub- Division, Paltan Bazar, Guwahati, opposite party No. 3. The case of the plaintiff opposite party No. 11 in the said suit was that the plaintiff was the owner in respect of a plot of land measuring 4 K 3 L bearing Municipal Holding No. 7-A in Ward No. 20 of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation and the plaintiff owned an Assam Type House over the said land. For the said house supply of electricity was being made through the electric meter No. CL-10188520 in respect of which the plaintiff was the consumer. Since power line to the said suit house became unsafe, the plaintiff filed an application dited 10.12.87 before the authorities of the ASEB for disconnecting the electric supply to the aforesaid electric meter, and the Sub-Divisional Officer, ASEB, disconnected the power supply line on 7.5.88. But the petitioner defendant No. 3 was trying; for the line to be reconnected through the authorities of the ASEB. It is on these facts, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction restraining the ASEB authorities from reconnecting the power line. Alongwith the said suit the plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction. The learned M unsiff No. 1 Guwahati initially passed an order of status quo before notice and thereafter, allowed the prayer for temporary injunction by order dated 6.12.89. Aggrieved by the said order of temporary injunction, the petitioner defendant No. 3 filed Misc Appeal No. 1/93 but by judgment and order dated 15.2.93, the learned Assistant District Judge No.l Guwahati, dismissed the said Appeal.

(3.) At the time of hearing this Civil Revision, Mr. G.N.Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the main ground on which the learned Assistant District Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner was that the plaintiff opposite party No. 1 was the owner of the electric meter No. CL-10188520. But what both the trial Court and appellate Court failed to appreciate is that according to plaintiffs own case in another Title Suit No. 184/87 filed against the petitioner for eviction, the petitioner was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid Assam Type house, and under law, the plaintiff as a land-lord had a duty to maintain all essential services to hits tenant including the electric supply and the suit is still pending disposal. It was further argued by Mr. Sahewalla that documents before the Court below indicated that the electric meter did not stand in the name of the plaintiff but in the name of one Sri S.K. Hazarika. Mr. Sahewalla also submitted that the trial Court as well as appellate Court have failed to appreciate that the balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioner and against the plaintiff inasmuch as by order of temporary injunction, the petitioner was deprived of electricity supply in respect of the house.