- (1.) This appeal is directed against a Judgement and Order dated 6.7.1999 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the respondents hererin was allowed with the certain directions. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The appellant herein is the owner of a property being premises No. 188/169. Diamond Harbour Road. There are several consumers of electrical energy in the said premises. Admittedly the writ petitioners are occyping some flats in the following manner : NAMES FLAT NO. FLOOR 1. SOUMITRA BANERJEE D-4 3rd 2. SWAPAN DUTTA C-5 4th 3. SM. GOURI DUTTA D-5 4th 4. SMT. REKHA GUHA C-4 3rd 5. PRADIP KUMAR CHAKRABORTY D-6 5th."
(2.) According to the writ petitioners, they had been allotted and/or sold the said flats by reason of agreement entered into by and between them and the developer, Sumanta Bose, proprietor of Progressive Construction-respondent No. 6 and Amitava Rayrespondent No. 4 in the writ petition since 1994 are in occupation thereof. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had been given electrical connection from existing meter standing in the name of Respondnet No. 5 but the said electrical connection has been disconnected. The petitioners had applied for grant of separate electrical connection from the authorities of CESC Ltd. after their electrical connection were disconnected.
(3.) The appellant herein was added as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition in his Affidavit-in-Opposition inter alia, alleged : "(a) That on 15.3.91 an agreement was entered into between the respondent No. 6, the promoter and myself for construction of multistoried building on the aforesaid ground floor within 14 months from 15.3.1991; In the month of March 1992 a power of attorney was granted in favour of the respondent No. 6 with some terms and conditions. The said power of attorney was valid upto 31.12.1992. The respondent No. 6 has failed and neglected to comply with terms and condition of the agreement within the stipulated period and as such both agreement and power of attorney ceased to exist with effect from 1.1.1993; (b) That sometimes in the first part of 1994 the petitioners along with Samarendra Biswas in collusion with respondent No. 6 inducted possession without the knowledge, consent and inspite of my objection, and as such after ceasation of the agreement and power of attorney since 1.1.1993 the respondent No. 6 has/had no right to induct possession to the petitioners and as such they have got no right, title interest in respect of the property in question. They are all rank trespassers; (c) That on 4.2.1994, I made a complaint before the Officer-in- Charge Thakurpukur Police Station alleging against the respondent No. 6 and Samarendra Biswas is the only person who took illegal possession at that relevant time; (d) That a Title Suit being T.S. 477 of 1995 was filed by me against the Progressive Construction and others, the respondent No. 6 for a declaration of my title to the suit property and also declaration that agreement dated 15.3.1991, between the respondent No.6 and myself and the power of Attorney dated March 1992 executed by me in favour of the defendant the respondent No. 6 can no longer binding and operative upon myself, the plaintiff and both the said documents are void by efflux of time; By an order dated 17.1.1998 the suit was decreed against the defendants the respondent No.6 the agreement dated 15.3.1991 and power of attorney dated March 1992 are no longer binding and operative upon myself, the plaintiff (myself) is in possession of suit property and the defendant the Respondent No.6 is restrained from interfering the use, enjoyment and possession of the plaintiff in the suit property; (e) That a title suit being T.S. 142 of 1998 has been filed by me before the Court of 7th Assistant Judge, Senior Division, Alipore against the petitioners including Samarendra Biswas and the respondent No. 6 for eviction of those defendants declaring them as rank trespassers from the suit property being the premises No. 188/169, Diamond Harbour Road, Calcutta-8 and claiming damages, permanent injunction etc. Along with that an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. was filed. By an order dated 19.5.1998 it was held by the Learned 7th Assistant Judge (Senior Divison) Alipore that considering the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff (myself) that status quo with respect of the suit property as on that date be maintained till the disposal of the temporary injunction application; That the said suit is still pending and the petitioners along with Samarendra Biswas filed Hajira for contesting the suit. This material and vital fact has been deliberately suppressed in the instant writ petition, so the name is liable to be rejected in limine with cost. I, further, say that before decision of the suit the petitioners have no locus standi to move this Court be ranked trespassers. They have no status in respect of the premises as they are neither tenant, nor lawful owner, nor lease-holder but merely a forceable unauthorised occupants and as such they cannot claim for electric connection and installation of metre in respect of the said premises, which is permissible only to the lawful owner and occupier of any premises.";