ARCHAEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, HARYANA, ART DESIGN BUILDING, SECTOR 10, CHANDIGARH, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR Vs. PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, PKL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the Archaeology Department, Haryana against the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Panchkula dated 11.02.2017 by which it had directed the petitioner to pay the electricity bill amounting to Rs2,05,565/- on the ground that it was a part of tenancy.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had taken on lease from respondent No.2 the basement, Ist and 2nd floors in Panchkula by lease agreement dated 10.09.2005. Respondent No.2 filed an application seeking eviction of the petitioner, which was allowed by the Rent Controller, Panchkula on 01.06.2012. In compliance of the said order, the premises was vacated but since the valuable antiquities, sculptures were lying in the basement, the said portion was locked and kept in possession of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner had paid all the electricity bills upto 20.03.2013. Respondents No.3 and 4 had allegedly issued a bill of Rs1,90,108/- which was allegedly more than the actual consumption. The petitioner had a long chain of correspondence with respondent No.3 and 4 for the correction of the electricity bill but to no avail rather respondents No.3 and 4 issued another bill amounting to Rs7,64,807/- after adding penalty. Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 22C (1) of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 aginst the aforesaid bill of Rs7,64,807/-. The permanent Lok Adalat allowed the application and reduced it to Rs2,05,565/-. While reducing the said amount, the Permanent Lok Adalat had also directed the petitioner to make payment of the said amount on the ground that it was part of the tenancy.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitoner has submitted that the permanent Lok Adalat though had the jurisdiction to decide about the inflated bill which was issued by respondents No.3 and 4 but could not direct the petitioner to make the payment of said amount as it was a dispute between landlord and tenant.