Chakravartti, C.J. - (1.) In support of this appeal Mr. Dhar formulated two points before us, each one of which was a new point.
(2.) The facts are simple and may be stated briefly. It appears that the appellant is a tenant in respect of a small plot of land owned by respondents 2 to 4. His status as a tenant was a matter of some dispute before the court below, but in this Court it was admitted by his learned Counsel that he was a thika tenant. On 28-10-1950, the appellant made an application to the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., for the supply of electrical energy to his house after the necessary installation works had been executed. On the 30th October following the landlords of the land on which the appellant's house stands lodged an objection with the Electric Supply Corporation. That objection was apparently disregarded, for, on 11th December following, the Corporation sent the appellant a bill for. Rs. 93-14-0 on account of the expenses to be incurred in connection with the installation. On 5-1-1951, the bill was paid. It is stated that thereafter the Electric Supply Corporation took the overhead cable line upto the exterior wall of the appellant's building and fixed it to the wall by means of a bracket and also installed a metre box. No supply of electrical energy however, was yet given. On 26-2-1951, the landlords lodged a second objection, calling attention to their first, in which it had been stated that there was a dispute between them and the appellant with respect to his occupation of the land. On 7-3-1951, the Electric Supply Corporation informed the appellant that they were unable to proceed further with the installation of electric connection in his premises unless and until an amicable settlement was arrived at between his landlords and himself. Thereafter, the appellant moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of mandamus upon the Electric Supply Corporation, directing them "to supply electricity and electrical energy" at his premises.
(3.) One other fact requires to be stated. The Electric Supply Corporation have framed certain Rules or laid down certain conditions in exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 21(2), Indian Electricity Act. One such condition is that "where the consumer is not the owner of the building for which or any part of which a service connection is applied for and/or of the land on which, the building is situate, the concurrence and permission in writing of the owner or owners of the building and of the land on under or over which the supply line is to be laid or placed, for the laying of a supply line and the erection of the necessary apparatus for the service connection on or, within the land and/or the buildings, must be obtained by the consumer." It is said that in view of that condition the appellant was presented with two forms, one intended to be filled up by the occupier and another by the owner and that he signed and filled up both. As has been seen, the appellant is not the owner of the land on which his house is situated. The case made by the Electric Supply Corporation before the learned Judge below was that they had been misled by the appellant having signed the owner's form which caused them to think that he was the owner of the land as well.;