PRABHAT CHANDRA SAHA Vs. BHIMSEN VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner for directing the parties to restore the electric connection to the suit premises.

(2.) The facts as stated in the application are that the petitioner is a tenant under the Opposite Party no. 1. The opposite party No. 1 filed a suit in the Court of the Sadar Munsiff, Guwahati for ejectment of the petitioner from the suit premises and for recovery of arrear amount of Rs. 1495/- from the petitioner. The suit was transferred to the Court of the Sadar Munsiff No. 2, Guwahati and was numbered as Title Suit No. 52 of 1985. The petitioner contested the said suit by filling a written statement and on consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the trial court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 23.10.90. Against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the Opposite Party No. 1 preferred Title Appeal No. 1 of 1991 in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Guwahati and the appeal was allowed by judgement and decree dated 23.12.1991. Aggrieved by the said judgement and decree of the learned Assistant District Judge, Guwahati, the petitioner has filed this Civil Revision No. 56/92 before this court and on 6.2.92 while issuing rule, this court passed an interim order suspending the execution of the decree of the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 1/91. By virtue of the said interim order, the petitioner continues to be on possession of the suit premises. During the pendency of the Civil Revision, however, electricity supply to suit premises is alleged to have been disconnected on 22.11.93. The petitioner has approached the opposite party No. 2, Assam State Electricity Board, through the Sub-Divisional Officer, A.S.E.B., Paltanbazar (opposite Party No. 3) and has deposited Rs. 40/- towards reconnectipn fees, but the opposite party No. 3 informed the petitioner that he cannot reconnet the line since the house owner, Opposite Party No. 1, has not given consent for Such reconnection. In the circumstances, the petitioner requested the opposite Party No. 1 during the 1st week of December, 1993 for reconnection of the line but the Opposite Party No. 1 refused to reconnect the line. In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner has moved this court for restoration of supply of electricity to the suit premises during the pendency of the Civil Revision under Section 7(1) and (2) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act 1972, and Section 151 CPC.

(3.) An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the opposite party No. 1 wherein it has been contended that an application for restoration of electricity can only be filed under Section 7(1) and (2) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act 1972 before the Civil Court and not before this Court. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the Opposite Party No. 1 has also denied the various averments made by the petitioner in the application for restoration of electricity and has stated that the opposite party No. 1 has never disconnected the electricirty supply to the suit premises and that the petitioner has never approached the opposite party No. 1 during the 1st week of Dec'93 with a request to reconnect the line. In reply to the affidavit-inopposition filed by the opposite Party No. 1, the petitioner has filed a rejoined reiterating the facts stated in the application for restoration of electricity.