VINEY MITTAL - (1.) Delay in refiling the present appeal is condoned. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff claiming that he was a tenant of the present appellant Sarla Devi. The electric meter to the shop in question had been disconnected by Sarla Devi since the same was domestic meter installed in the house of Sarla Devi. Consequently, the plaintiff sought mandatory injunction against the defendant Electricity Board and its officers for installing a commercial meter in the shop in question. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court. It was held that the plaintiff being an occupier and tenant of the shop in question was entitled to get installed a commercial meter in the premises.
(2.) Two appeals were filed. An appeal was filed by the defendant in the suit. Another appeal was sought to be filed by Sarla Devi, landlady. She sought a permission from the learned First Appellate Court to file an appeal.
(3.) The learned First Appellate Court heard on merits of the controversy and held that the claim of the plaintiff was wholly justified. It was also noticed by the learned First Appellate Court that since a suit for possession filed by Sarla Devi against the plaintiff had been dismissed, therefore, the plaintiff was in a settled possession of the shop in question. In these circumstances, Sarla Devi did not have any locus standi to file the appeal. Consequently, both the appeals were dismissed. Sarla Devi has now chosen to file the present appeal. Firstly, it has not been shown that as to how she has any locus standi to file the present appeal. Secondly, on merits of the controversy, two Courts below have held that the plaintiff being in a settled possession of the shop in question being a tenant was entitled to get installed a commercial meter in shop in question.;