RAJENDRA KUMAR RAMPURIA Vs. ALLEN RICHARDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional application is directed against order dated 21.7.94 passed by the learned Calcutta District Forum in C. D. F. Case No.2156 of 1994. In the Impugned order, the District Forum, Calcutta restrained the revisioner/landlord from disconnecting the electric line of the respondent No.1, on the plea of non-payment of the bill and from disturbing in installing a separate meter at the cost of the respondent No.1/tenant at the premises Nos.5 and 6, Pannalal Banerjee Lane, Calcutta 1. The revisioner/landlord in this instant revisional application was further restrained from realising the bills for electricity consumption exceeding Rs.1,000/- per month. The learned District Forum, Calcutta also directed the Officer-in-Charge, Hare Street Police Station to implement the order passed by it in this regard.

(2.) The background of the case is that an Eviction suit being numbered as Ejt. Suit No.1114 of 1981 is pending before the City Civil Court at Calctutta. The said Ejectment suit is instituted by the revisioner/landlord against the respondent No.1/tenant on various grounds. In the said suit, the similar dispute regarding supply of electricity arose where a mandatory injection was passed by the City Civil Court at Calcutta in favour of the respondent No.1/ tenant and the revisioner/landlord preferred an appeal being F. A. No.10 of 1981 before the Hon'ble High Court against the said mandatory injunction passed by the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The Hon'ble High Court modified the order to the effect that it ought to be continued on the respondent No.1/tenant's paying all sums claimed by the revisioner/landlord towards the arrear and current electricity charges consumed by the respondent No.1/tenant. It was also made clear by the Hon'ble High Court that the order of mandatory injunction might be granted for a limited period giving liberty to the respondent No.1/tenant to obtain a separate meter from the respondent No.2/cesc Ltd. The Hon'ble High Court also observed that the order of mandatory injunction in favour of respondent No.1/tenant would not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending ejectment suit. The Hon'ble High Court in the said appeal giving necessary direction for payment of the arrears of electricity charges observed that the order of mandatory injuction would unconditionally continue till 15th November, 1985 or till the respondent No.1 /tenant obtained a separate electric connection in its name whichever was earlier and within the said stipulated period, the respondent No.1/tenant would be entitled to a separate connection in respect of the said premises occupied by it and that the revisioner/landlord consented thereby in taking such connection but on the expiry of aforesaid period the revisioner/landlord was entitled to disconnect the electric connection unless the Hon'ble High Court after hearing both the parties extended the said period. Further, it was made clear that the respondent No.1 /tenant would go on paying to the revisioner/landlord, the current electric charges within 10 days from the date of receipt of written demand made by the revisioner/landlord and the first of such bill was directed to present from the month of May, 1985 and in default of payment of electricity consumption for any two months, the revisioner/ landlord would be entitled to disconnect the electric supply and that the said payment by the respondent No.1 / tenant would be without prejudice to the claim and contention of the revisioner/ landlord.

(3.) That being the position the matter in dispute in the instant complaint proceeding had been adjudicated by the Hon'ble High Court in F. A. No.10 of 1981. In view of the High Court's order that extension of time limit for obtaining separate electric connection beyond 15th November, 1985, would require extension of time from the Hon'ble High Court after hearing from both the parties. As the similar dispute between the same parties for the same cause of action had been decided by the Hon'ble High Court on merits, the complainant/respondent No.1/tenant has no right to bring the same dispute before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. We also cannot interfere with the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the pending litigation before the City Civil Court at Calcutta. Moreover, the dispute raised before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum is barred by doctrine of resjudicata.