AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The thrust of the argument on behalf of the petitioner to avoid the realization of the electricity dues in respect of the premises in question is on the ground that even though, the petitioner is the owner-cum-landlord of the premises, yet the electricity consumption was a liability of the respondent no. 5 exclusively, inasmuch as, the electricity connection stood in his name and it was his liability that was to be discharged in terms of the agreement entered into between the Electricity Department and the respondent No. 5.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that in the absence of any such coextensive liability of the petitioner as landlord/owner the realization of the electricity dues from the petitioner is unlawful. A prayer has been made to quash the recovery proceedings initiated dated 22nd August, 2017 that is being executed by the Tehsildar, Sadar Kanpur Nagar.;