- (1.) Heard Counsel for the parties.
(2.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the Award of the permanent Lok Adalat whereby the Lok Adalat has issued a direction to the respondent-J.S.E.B. to give electric connection to the respondent No. 4 who, according to the petitioner, is a tenant in the house of which the petitioner claims himself to be the landlord.
(3.) As per the pleadings of the petitioner, the house had earlier belonged to one Gita Biswas widow of Late Kanhai Lai Biswas. The petitioner claims to have purchased the house under a registered sale deed from the erstwhile owner. It is also claimed that the present respondent No. 4 was originally inducted as a tenant in the house by the erstwhile owner and later, upon the house being transferred to the present petitioner, appropriate notice was given to the respondent No. 4 both by the erstwhile owner as well as by the petitioner calling upon the Respondent No. 4 to continue payment of monthly rent to the petitioner, who is the present landlord of the house. It is alleged that the respondent No. 4 has failed to pay the monthly rent to the petitioner and on account of the default, the petitioner has already instituted a suit for eviction of the Respondent No. 4 from the premises which is presently being contested by the Respondent No. 4. It is further informed that since the erstwhile owner of the house had surrendered the electric connection of the house, the Respondent No. 4 had applied directly to the Electricity Board for extending the electric connection to the portion under her occupation. The electricity Board refused the request of the Respondent No. 4 on the ground that unless she obtains a no objection certificate from the landlord, such connection cannot be extended to her. Respondent No. 4 thereafter filed a writ application before this Court for the same relief vide W.P.(C) No. 3090 of 2006 but the same was dismissed. Later, the Respondent No. 4 approached the Vidyut Upvokta Sikayat Niwaran Forum with the same relief but there also her prayer was rejected. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 4 approached the permanent Lok Adalat for the same relief and that too without even impleading the petitioner in her application, as a necessary party. The permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to decide on the dispute without impleading the petitioner as a necessary party and without offering any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and had passed the impugned Award containing the directions as aforementioned.;