JOHN EARNEST EDWARD Vs. RAI JOGENDRA CHANDRA GHOSE BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two rules were issued at the instance of the defendants upon the plaintiff opposite party in a suit instituted in the Court of the Small Causes, Sealdah for recovery of damages. The case of the plaintiff opposite party briefly stated is as follows: Plaintiff is the owner of Premises. 25 and 25 A Harish Mukerji Road Bhowanipur P.S. on 7 June 1933 and 8 June 1933 defendant 2 i.e., Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. served notices upon him demanding payment of the charge for supplying electric current and intimating that on failure thereof the supply would be cut off. The amounts covered by the said notices were paid in time by the plaintiff. No notice of discontinuing the current of the aforesaid premises on account of their arrears was ever served on him. He was never informed by defendant 2 that the electric connexion of the said premises would be cut off, for non-payment of the charges for supplying energy to his other premises. Though nothing was due to defendant 2 on account of the said premises, defendant 1, an Inspector of defendant 2, entered the said premises on 23 June 1933 on the false pretext of examining the meters of the said, premises for changing it without disclosing his real purpose and cut off the supply without knowledge of the plaintiff. There are 10 shops in the one storied out-house appertaining to the said premises, the shop keeper of which pay for the current to the plaintiff. On account of this wrongful cutting off of the supply the tenants of the shops lost their customers and plaintiff also sustained loss and damage. On these allegations plaintiff claimed Rs. 400 as damages.

(2.) The defences of the defendants in substance are; (1) that the plaintiff did not pay certain bills for supplying energy to premises 27-A, 27-B, 27-C, 27-D, Harish Mukherji Road; (2) that on 1 June 1933 plaintiff was given express notice that unless all the sums due from him were paid defendant 2 would disconnect the meters at Nos. 25 and 25-A Harish Mukerji Road; (3) that statutory notices were given to the plaintiff; (4) that on 23 June 1933 Rs 380-5 6 was due from the plaintiff to defendant 2; (5) that by virtue of the provision of Clauses 6 and 10 of the agreement executed by the plaintiff on 17 June 1922, 29 December 1924, 14th January 1925, 28 January 1925, 6 February 1925, and 12 January 1932 and in pursuance of the power conferred by Section 20, Sub-section 1 and Section 24, Electricity Act, 1910, defendant 2 by its servant, defendant, entered upon the plaintiff's premises Nos. 25, 25-A and by its said servant removed and took away some fuses connecting defendant's meters in the said premises installed with the service and supply lines, (6) that on the said occasion and prior to the removal of the said fuses defendant 1 verbally intimated to the plaintiff his intention and purpose to disconnect the said meters and that he had authority and order of defendant 2 to cut off the supply of electrical energy from the said premises unless the plaintiff then and there paid to him as representing defendant 2 the whole of the money then due and owing in respect of energy supplied to the premises 27 A, 27-B, 27-C and 27-D, (7) that the written notices served upon the plaintiff prior to the cutting off the supply constitute "information" required by Section 20, Sub-section 1, Electricity Act, 1910.

(3.) The opposite party gave evidence in support of his allegation in the plaint. Defendant 1 however did not come to the witness box. The learned Small Cause Court Judge held: (a) that the charges for premises 25 and 25-A were paid after service of notice; (b) that the charges for 27-A, B, C and D remained due; (c) that under Clause (6) of the agreement between parties defendant 2 had right to cut off the supply from premises Nos. 25 and 25-A; (d) that defendant 1 who cut off the supply did not disclose his purpose to the plaintiff that he wanted to enter the premises for cutting off the supply; (e) that defendant 1 cut off supply stealthily without the knowledge of the plaintiff and bolted away; (f) that if the plaintiff had known that defendant 1 had come to cut off the supply he would have paid off the dues then and there, although there was controversy how far the bills for the premises No. 27 which was sold away by the plaintiff are recoverable from him; (g) that the plaintiff was entitled to get damages at the rate of Rs. 20 per day. The suit has accordingly been decreed in part.