Bose, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate Writ directing the opposite party No. 1 to supply electricity at premises No. 14, Kalitala Lane, Earanagar, in the district of 24-Parganas.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is a lease-holder for more than 12 years paying as annual rent for the land situate at 14 Kalitala Lane, Baranagar, in the district of 24-Parganas under the Zamindars who are opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4. It is alleged that the petitioner has erected a pucca structure of his own on the land and he has become a permanent leaseholder. It appears that the petitioner applied to the opposite party No. 1 for supply of electricity at the said premises. An inspector of the opposite party No. 1 came to the petitioner's said premises for inspection. It is alleged that the opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 came to know about this application of the petitioner to the opposite party No. 1 for the supply of electricity to the said premises and they demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- by way of blackmailing the petitioner but as the petitioner refused to pay any sum the said opposite parties out of grudge wrote a letter dated 30-10-1950 to the opposite party No. 1 stating that there was a dispute subsisting in respect of the lands in question. It is further alleged that the opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 failed to prove any subsisting dispute before the opposite party No. 1 who ignored the objection put forward on behalf of the said opposite parties and on 11-12-1950 the opposite party No. 1 sent a bill to the petitioner for payment of Rs. 93-14-0 for the said electric installation. Thereafter on 5-1-1951 the petitioner paid the sum of Rs. 93-14-0 and the opposite party No. 1 thereupon installed the electric line up to the said premises and fitted the electric meter box at the said premises but on 26-2-1951 the said opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 wrote another letter to the opposite party No. 1 and requested the opposite party No. 1 to take necessary action in view of what was stated in their previous letter of 30-11-1950. On 7-3-1951 the Acting District Engineer of the Northern District of the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. wrote a letter to the petitioner stating that the Supply Corporation was unable to proceed further in the matter until an amicable settlement amongst the petitioner and the opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 was arrived at. The petitioner thereupon wrote another letter to the opposite party No. 1 on 21-6-1951 stating that there was no dispute with regard to the land' in question and requested the opposite party No. 1 to complete the work at the said premises and supply the electrical energy to the said premises but on 28-6-1951 the Assistant District Engineer wrote back to the pleader of the petitioner to the effect that the Corporation regretted that they had nothing further to add to the letter of 7-3-1951. Upon that the petitioner moved this Court and obtained a Rule Nisi on 5-12-1951.
(3.) The opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have filed a counter-affidavit affirmed by the opposite party No. 4. It is stated in this affidavit that the petitioner is in occupation of the land in question for less than 12 years as a monthly ejectable tenant at will and the rent is payable monthly and not annually per kist as alleged and there are certain other co-sharers in respect of the lands in question who have not been made parties to this application. It is further stated that the tenancy had been terminated by giving six months' notice in writing on 28-8-1950 asking the petitioner to vacate the land by 14-4-1951. It is further stated in this affidavit that the said opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4, their co-sharers are the owners in respect of this land and their consent is necessary under Section 12(2), Indian Electricity Act for the supply of such electric energy.' It is also pointed out in this affidavit that the petitioner had signed the white form of Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation falsely descrihing himself as the owner of the land in question. On, behalf of the opposite party No. 1, one David Pugh, the Deputy Commercial Manager, has affirmed an affidavit and it is stated that as the petitioner had represented himself to be the owner and had also signed the white form as the owner, the opposite party No. 1 was misled into thinking that the petitioner was the owner and on that basis they proceeded with the work of electric installation but as soon as it was brought to their notice by the opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 that there was dispute as to the ownership, they did not take any further steps in the matter. A copy Of the letter of 30-10-1950 is annexed to this affidavit of Mr. Pugh and it appears there from that the contention of the opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is that the petitioner is a thika monthly tenant under the said opposite parties and without their written consent no installation could be made on the premises in question. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in reply and to this affidavit are annexed certain rent receipts granted by the opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4. It appears from the rent receipts that the petitioner is described as a thika temporary tenant. This fact is of course disputed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner before me at the hearing. .;