G.R. Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) The five writ Petitioners in this writ petition pray for direction upon the Respondent Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd. (C.E.S.C. for short) for supplying electricity to them and also for separate meters. The writ Petitioners claim to be tenants in respect of different portions of premises No. 168B, Cotton Street, Calcutta, under the Respondent No. 2. It is the contention of the C.E.S.C, inter alia, that the meters in the said premises stood in the name of the landlord, and as the landlord made huge default in payment of electricity dues, the line was disconnected and the writ Petitioners as tenants/occupants of the said premises who enjoyed the benefit of electric connection to the said premises who enjoyed through the meter standing in the name of the landlord are not entitled to separate connection and meter in respect of their separate portions unless such arrear dues are liquidated. The matter however went upto the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court remanded the matter by order dated November 21, 1994, with certain directions upon the trial Court. It was directed, inter alia, that the trial Court would reconsider the prayer of each of the writ Petitioners for suitable direction to the C.E.S.C. to supply electricity to the tenants alleged to be in occupation as an interim measure on such terms as are considered appropriate and reasonable subject to final outcome of the suit. Subsequently, the writ Petitioners Nos. 1, 3 and 5 filed application dated January 19, 1995, inter alia praying for separate electric connection and also for interim orders. Affidavit -in -opposition also had been affirmed on behalf of the C.E.S.C. The landlord Respondent however, preferred not to appear before this Court in spite of earlier notice. However, on the submission of the learned Advocate the parties appearing before me and as desired by them the application of the writ Petitioners 1, 3 and 5 for interim order the writ petition itself has been taken up together for simultaneous disposal as common questions are involved therein.
(2.) The contentions of the Respondent C.E.S.C. are stated hereafter. In 1977 the landlord of the said premises filed a title suit being Title Suit No. 1778 of 1977 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta against the C.E.S.C. for declaration that the C.E.S.C. was not entitled to charge commercial rate for current consumed at the said premises and obtained an ex parte ad interim order of injunction restraining the C.E.S.C. from disconnecting the electric line in the said premises. Thereafter the said suit was dismissed for default several times and, lastly, it was dismissed in 1988 and a Misc. case for restoration of the said suit was filed and also an application under Sec. 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for an ad interim order of injunction which was rejected and then the landlord filed a revisional application in the High Court. The revisional application was disposed of on March 3, 1993, by directing the landlord to deposit Rs. 1 lakh in the trial Court and to go on paying the current electricity dues, and in default the C.E.S.C. was given the liberty to proceed as per law. However, initially on the said revisional application the landlord obtained an ex parte ad interim order of injunction and taking advantage of that interim order of injunction he did not pay the dues for consumption of electricity in the said premises to the tune of Rs. 10,23,382.73 which has been arrived at after adjustment of security deposit. Apart from the said amount delayed payment surcharge is also payable for the said amount. As the consumer failed to make payment of the current dues, the electricity supply at the said premises was disconnected by the C.E.S.C. on July 26, 1993, pursuant to the leave granted to it in the order of the Court dated March 2, 1993. On August 11, 1993, the landlord moved a writ application praying inter alia for a direction to restore the supply, .but no interim order was passed for restoration. Then on September 29, 1993, the present writ Petitioners Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 applied to the C.E.S.C. for new supply and earlier on August 2, 1993, the writ Petitioner No. 2 applied to the C.E.S.C. for such supply. Subsequently, the writ Petitioners filed the present writ petition. I have recorded above the contentions raised by the C.E.S.C. in this case. It is also the contention of the C.E.S.C. that some of the writ Petitioners are' not tenants or authorised occupants in the concerned premises.
(3.) My attention has been drawn by the learned Advocate appearing for the writ Petitioners to the order of the Supreme Court dated November 19, 1994, where it has been recorded that the learned Counsel appearing for the landlord stated before the Supreme Court that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 5, P. C. Ranga and Kamal Singh Bhutoria, are admitted by the landlord to be in occupation of the premises occupied by them as his tenants. It may be mentioned here that the said P. C. Ranga and Kamal Singh Bhutoria are writ Petitioner, Nos. 1 and 5 respectively in this writ petition. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners further attracted my attention to a latter dated November 6, 1993, issued on behalf of the landlord to the C.E.S.C, Annex. G to the affidavit -in -opposition affirmed by Shri Mihir Kr. Bose on February 23,'1993, on behalf of the C.E.S.C. It is stated on behalf of the landlord at p. 3 of the said letter that Deokishan Acharya (writ Petitioner No. 2) and Ashoke Ranga (writ Petitioner No. 4) are not bona fide tenants in the premises and they are unauthorised persons in the building but Bimala Devi Ranga (writ Petitioner No. 3) and Kamal Singh Bhutoria (writ Petitioner No. 5) are bona fide tenants, but they are defaulters in payment of rents including their shares of electricity charges. In view of the statements made in this letter as well as in view of the submission made on behalf of the landlord before the Supreme Court it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the writ Petitioners that at least the writ Petitioners Nos. 1, 3 and 5 are admitted by the landlord to be bona fide tenants in respect of the portions occupied by them in the concerned premises, and as such there is no difficulty in their having separate electric connection and meters from the C.E.S.C. It is also the case of the writ Petitioners that they all made payment of their shares of the electricity charges to the landlord and, as such, they are not responsible in any way for non -payment of the electricity charges by the landlord to the C.E.S.C. But the landlord, however, as would appear from the said letter dated November 6, 1993, Annex. G to the affidavit -in -opposition affirmed by Shri Mihar Kr. Bose did not admit the payment of electricity charges to him by the writ Petitioners. In fact, in the said letter the landlord has also stated the respective amounts which are payable by the writ Petitioners Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. It is the contention of the C.E.S.C. on the other hand that unless the arrear electricity dues payable by the consumer are paid to the C.E.S.C. the writ Petitioners, even if they are bona fide tenants or authorised occupants in the concerned premises, are not entitled to get separate electric connection or meter in their names inasmuch as they enjoyed the benefit of supply of electricity earlier in the same premises for which the consumer is a defaulter to the C.E.S.C. in respect of the charges payable for such consumption of electricity.;