BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved with the order passed by the District Magistrate, Churu on 20. 2. 1996 directing the petitioner to restore the electricity connection which has been disconnected for want of payment of bills issued by the then Rajasthan State Electricity Board by affirming the order passed by SDM, Churu dt. 29. 11. 1995. The petitioner alleges that relationship between landlord and respondent No. 3 has not been established and therefore the said direction could not have been issued u/s. 12 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. Two authorities have relied on the statement about the ownership of the premises given by an employee of the tenant of the adjoining shop that the petitioner is owner of the shop in question. Even according to the affidavit now produced by the petitioner that house in which shop situated belongs to the petitioner and shops to his son Abbas. The electricity bills are received in the name of said Abbas, directing by one Liakat Ali. As per terms the bills are deposited by the landlord. On disclosure of these facts learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to seek instructions. apparently, the petitioner wants to seek interference of this Court on technical ground. There being no dispute that there is any conflict of interest between the petitioner and his son Abbas. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and clarify that if the petitioner fails to restore the electricity connection to the premises in question within @15 days it will be open for the respondent No. 3 to restore the electricity connection himself by taking necessary action in that regard,and whatever amount, it will be required,to be paid by him to the successor of erstwhile State Electricity Board, shall be recoverable from the petitioner as a decree of Civil Court which may be executed in accordance with law. . ;