- (1.) The petitioner herein purchased 95 per cent share in a flat at the second floor of premises No. 13, Abdul Hamid Street, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-700069, from the erstwhile owners of the said flat excepting the share of the one co-owner, by a registered deed of conveyance dated 23rd December, 1997. Even prior to such purchase, the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the said flat under all the owners of the said flat. Allthroughout the petitioner was enjoying the supply of water through common water supply system in the said premises. The deed of conveyance also recognised the petitioners' right to get supply of water and/or to enjoy all other common amenities in the said premises jointly with the other co-owners of the said building. Since supply of water to the petitioner's flat was disconnected by Reliable Hrdes Private Limited, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in the pending suit before the learned Judge, Seventh Court, City Civil Court at Kolkata, inter alia seeking issuance of direction upon the Reliable Hrdes Private Limited, the defendant therein to restore the supply of water to the petitioner's flat in the second floor of the said building.
(2.) The defendant contested the petitioner's said application by contending that since the petitioner had illegally taken water connection from the connection which was taken by the defendant separately in the said premises by incurring additional expenses therefor, the petitioner is not entitled to get his illegal connection restored by an order of Court.
(3.) The learned Trial Judge was pleased to allow the petitioner's said application on 26th February, 2009 by directing the defendant to restore the supply of water to the suit flat of the petitioner forthwith. The defendant was aggrieved by the said order. Hence the defendant filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court. In Course of hearing of the said revisional application, the learned Advocate, appearing for the defendant, did not deny the petitioner's right to enjoy the supply of water in the said premises as the petitioner is a co-owner of the said premises, but at the same time he contended that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to enjoy the said right without discharging his liability for payment of proportionate charges for enjoying the said supply.;