GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA J. - (1.) THE appeal is directed against an order dated 5th August, 2012, passed by brother Kargupta, J dismissing the writ petition bearing W. P. No.10618 (W) of 2012. The writ petitioner has come up in appeal. The prayers made in the writ petition principally were as follows: "In view as aforesaid, your petitioner most humbly prays that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or the writ in the nature thereof commanding the respondents:- (a) To do and to proceed in accordance with law. (b) To give supply of electricity in favour of your petitioner at premises NO.2/1/A, B.L.C. Mills Road, Post Office: Mahesh, Police Station: Serampore, District Hooghly, Pin-712202, by providing separate Electric Meter. (c) To restrain the respondent No.4 from putting any hindrance at the time of execution of supply of electricity and not to interfere with the supply of electricity of the premises of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever by giving access for such supply and the Officer-in-Charge of the local police station is directed to render all assistance for execution of such work. (d) Writ of certiorari do issue commanding the respondents to transmit the records relating the present proceedings to this Hon 'ble Court for giving conscionable justice to this case. "
(2.) THE case of the writ petitioner is that his father was a monthly tenant in respect of one R. T. Shed room at a monthly rental of Rs.200/- payable according to English calendar month. It is also his case that after the death of his father he became a tenant by operation of law. It is not in dispute that a suit for eviction, filed by landlady, the respondent No.4 herein, is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court at Serampore, Hooghly. It is also not in dispute that the defence of the writ petitioner has been struck out. Further undisputed fact, as would appear from the writ petition, is that the writ petitioner had applied under Section 37 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Section 37 of the aforesaid Act provides as follows: " (1) If any landlord refuses or withholds his consent for obtaining a separate electric connection to a tenant, the tenant desiring to get such supply from a licensee as defined in Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910), may apply to the Controller setting out the scheme for such supply. (2) On receipt of such application, the Controller may, after giving the landlord and the owner of the premises if he be not the landlord, an opportunity of being heard, give permission to the tenant to get the supply in accordance with the scheme set-out in the application or any modified scheme. (3) On such permission being given, the landlord or the owner, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have given the requisite consent under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the licensee shall not be liable to the landlord or the owner for trespass for the steps taken for the supply of electricity in accordance with the provisions of this section. " The said application was dismissed as not pressed on 18th March, 2009. The writ petitioner once again applied under Section 37 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act on 13th July, 2009 which was dismissed after the contested hearing by an order dated 26th November 2009. The writ petitioner on or about 12th March 2012 applied to the C.E.S.C. Ltd. for a new electric connection. A bill dated 22nd March, 2012, according to him, was raised by the C.E.S.C. Ltd. which was duly paid by him on 24th March, 2012. A copy of the bill is Annexure- P/4 to the writ petition. The C.E.S.C. Ltd. wrote a letter dated 5th April, 2012 to the writ petitioner intimating him as follows:- "Dear Sir Further to your submission of Annexure 'B ' requesting for a new connection and payment of our service charges and security deposit, our men went to carry out the job but could not do so due to objection raised at site. We would therefore request you to inform us a date and time when the access to the meter board position will be made available to enable us to proceed further in the matter. Assuring you of our best attention at all times. " The writ petition was filed on or about 15th April, 2012, alleging, inter alia, as follows: "That your petitioner states that the respondent authority are statutorily duty bound to provide electric connection to the premises of your petitioner and the grounds on which the respondent authority are refusing to provide electric connection is absolutely base less and as such the prayer made hereinafter be granted otherwise your petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury. "
(3.) THE C.E.S.C. Ltd., filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition reiterating the contents of their letter dated 5th April, 2012, quoted above. The respondent No.4 the landlady also filed an affidavit opposing the prayers in the writ petition. The learned Trial Court dismissed the writ petition principally on the ground that the prayer of the writ petitioner before the Civil Court for supply of electricity without permission of the landlady had already failed. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Trial Court, the writ petitioner has come up in appeal. Mr. Roy Karmakar, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the order dismissing the writ petition is patently bad considering the law laid down in the following cases: (1) Nemai Hait �vs.- C.E.S.C. Ltd. and Anr., reported in 2001 (2) CHN 71; (2) Fashion Proprietor Aswani Kumar Maity �vs.- West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in 2009 (2) CLT631. (3) A three-Judge-Bench of this Court in the case of Abhimanyu Mazumdar � vs.- Superintending Engineer reported in 2011(2) CHN (Cal 768). (4) Chandu Khamaru �vs.-Nayan Malik reported in 2012 (1) CHN (SC152) Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the C.E.S.C. Ltd., submitted that the writ petitioner has no cause of action as against his client because his client never refused to give electric connection to the writ petitioner. It would appear from Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition which is a letter dated 5th April, 2012 addressed by C.E.S.C. Ltd., intimating that they were prevented from giving the supply of electricity to the writ petitioner. He submitted that the writ petition as against his client is altogether without any merit. Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.4 submitted that the legislature has made adequate arrangement seeking to protect interest of the tenant in the matter of obtaining supply of electricity by enacting Section 37 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The writ petitioner applied under the said act and his prayer was refused. The order refusing his prayer has become final and is binding upon the writ petitioner. He added that the question whether the writ petitioner can obtain electricity without the consent of the landlady has been decided finally against him. This Court therefore should not reopen the matter which would amount to unsettling the settled rights and obligations of the parties. He added that the writ petitioner admittedly is a tenant by operation of law. He is entitled to the right of tenancy for a period of five years and the said period of five years is already over. The defence of the writ petitioner in the suit for eviction has been struck out. The writ petitioner has deliberately been prolonging the suit to continue his wrongful occupation of the premises in question. Considering that the writ petitioner has no cause of action against C.E.S.C. Ltd., and his private cause against the landlady has already been decided against him and considering that the writ is not maintainable against the respondent No.4 this Court should refrain from interfering with the order under challenge. Mr. Banerjee also submitted that the judgments cited by the appellant are all distinguishable on facts and none of them has any bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case.;