DELHI VIDYUT BOARD Vs. PUSHPA DEVI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case are that House No. B/2631 Gali No.16, Kailash Nagar, Delhi 31 belongs to Umed Singh, who was a Registered Consumer of Connection No. K601-127718. The Meter Reader made a report dated 15.2.1993 that the Electricity Connection was being misused. A notice was issued on 21.1.1994 to the said registered consumer and he was called upon to deposit arrears which amounted to Rs.77,184.53 in October, 1997. Smt. Pushpa Devi Jain applied for a new connection and she was called upon to produce the last bill having been duly paid. Her case was that she had purchased the House under a General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 24.4.1997 from Umed Singh and she was not liable to pay the dues which related to the period prior to the date of execution of the GPA in her favour. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Isha Marbles V/s. Bihar Electricity Board and Another, 1995 2 JT 626, the District. Forum held that the complainant Pushpa Devi Jain was not bound to clear the arrears prior to the date of purchase of the property on GPA and accordingly directed the opposite party, appellant herein, to deal with the complainant's application for connection without insisting for clearance of dues in the name of the registered consumer Umed Singh and issue the connection in favour of the complainant according to law. The opposite party was also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal.

(2.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It has been rightly contended by Miss Deepika, learned Counsel for the appellant that the case of M/s. Isha Marbles relied on by the learned District Forum is clearly distinguishable. That case related to an auction purchase of a certain Industrial Unit and it was held that the payment of arrears could not be made a condition precedent for release of a new connection in such a case. In the facts of the present case, on the other hand, all that has been executed in favour of Smt. Pushpa Devi Jain is a GPA. In law, the person in whose favour a GPA is executed is entitled to act for and on behalf of the executant of such an instrument. Though in common parlance, the property is believed to change hands by mere execution of GPA, it is not so in law. In law, the right, title and interest of owner of an immovable property can be transferred, inter alia, by execution of a sale deed and getting the same registered under Sec.17 of the Registration Act. The learned District Forum appears to have fallen in grave error by treating the complainant as transferee of the property instead of being a mere Power of Attorney holder. In law Umed Singh, the previous owner continues to be the owner of the property and Smt. Pushpa Devi Jain being a Power of Attorney holder is entitled to no better rights than the owner of the premises. If the view, which has been accepted by the District Forum is taken to be correct, the easiest thing for any person facing a huge bill would be to execute a Power of Attorney in favour of a third person and obtain a fresh connection in his or her name. The observations of the Supreme Court in Isha Marbles case with regard to the public money must be borne in mind. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed, order of the District Forum is set aside. As a result, the complaint filed by Pushpa Devi Jain stands dismissed. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties as well as District Forum-IV.