Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, A.C.J. - (1.) Admittedly, the respondent no. 2 was a lessee under the appellant in respect of the demised premises at Michael Nagar, Sahara Paulpara within the jurisdiction of Airport Police Station in the District of North 24-Parganas. The respondent no. 1 is a sub-lessee under the respondent no. 2. The respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the Directors of the respondent no. 2, company. It is also an admitted fact that those respondents were enjoying the supply of electricity through a meter installed in the name of the appellant (consumer) within the tenancy of the respondent no. 2. Such connection was disconnected at the instance of the appellant on a plea that after termination of the lease by efflux of time, the lessee and sub-lessee, who ceased to become the legal occupier of the premises cannot enjoy the supply of electricity within the demised premises.
(2.) Since the supply of electricity was disconnected at the instance of the appellant, the respondents were unable to carry on their commercial activities within their respective tenancies. They thus applied before the Electricity Distribution Company, namely, licensee for obtaining independent supply of electricity in their own names. Since the appellant resisted the Electricity Distribution Company from giving independent supply of electricity to the lessee and/or the sub-lessee, the respondents filed a writ petition before the learned single judge of this court. The said writ petition was ultimately allowed by the learned single judge of this court on 17th May 2017 with a direction upon the Electricity Distribution Company to process the application for new connection submitted by the respondents and to complete the entire process within four weeks from the date of receipt of such application.
(3.) While disposing of the said writ petition, the learned single judge observed that Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 does not create any distinction between the lawful occupant and the unlawful occupant. It was held that a person who is found to be in occupation and appears to have been enjoying electricity through the meter standing in the name of the private respondent, cannot be treated as a person not in settled possession, meaning thereby, such person should be treated as a person in settled possession which is one of the ingredients in relation to supply of electricity to an occupier of any property.;