PANCHAYATI AKHARA NIRMLA vs PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

PETITIONER in this batch of revision petitions is owner and landlord of certain premises under the tenancy of third respondent, in each petition. PETITIONER was not party in the complaint filed by the third respondent-complainant in the District Forum. His complaint was against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, Punjab State Electricity Board and the Sub-Divisional Officer of the Punjab State Electricity Board for grant of electric motor connection when requisite fee was deposited by him with the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Complaint of the third respondent was allowed by the District Forum by order dated 27.11.2001 and direction was issued to the respondents 1 and 2 herein for release of electric connection to the complainant as applied by him within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, if he fulfils all other requirements. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were also burdened with costs of Rs. 250/-.

IT is now the petitioner who felt aggrieved and filed appeal against the aforesaid orders of the District Forum to the State Commission alleging that the order of the District Forum was not correct in the absence of owner being party to the complaint. Along with the appeal, petitioner filed applications, (i) for grant of leave to file appeal; (ii) for extension of period of limitation; and (iii) for staying the release of connection to the alleged tube-well of the third respondent-complainant. State Commission held that application seeking leave to file appeal was not maintainable and dismissed the same. State Commission held that the appellant being not a party before the District Forum was not competent to file appeal. Result was that other two applications were also dismissed and so also the appeal. Aggrieved petitioner has come before us. District Forum referred to instruction No. 23 for grant of electric connection to the tenant in the absence of consent from the landlord. This Instruction No. 23 from the Sales Manual we quote : "Grant of electric connection in the absence of consent from the landlord : No separate undertaking/indemnity bond is required where the applicant for an electric connection is unable to obtain written consent of the landlord. 2. Clause 1 of the application and agreement form stipulates that if it has not been possible for a lawful occupier of the premises to obtain consent of the landlord, he should agree to keep indemnified and harmless the supplier against all claims made and actions and proceedings taken by the landlord or a person claiming through or under him by reason of giving the electric connection by the supplier. Note : Those applicants for T/well connections who have taken the land on lease or Patta and are unable to produce Fard of the land in their name may be asked to indemnify the Board by executing an indemnity bond duly stamped of the value of Rs. 15/- against all damages and also submit an attested copy of the lease/Patta of the land in support of their claim."

Relying on this instruction, District Forum was of the view that there was certainly deficiency in service and accordingly the complaint was allowed inasmuch as it was found that it was the complainant who was in possession of the premises to which electric connection was given.

MR. Wasan, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that Instruction No. 23, aforesaid was contrary to the Punjab Tenancy Law and in support of the submission he referred to Sections 64 and 65 and also to Section 4(19) of the Act (sic.) ''Improvement'' : These sections we quote : "4(19). Improvement means, with reference to a tenancy and work which is suitable to the tenancy and consistent with the conditions on which it is held by which value of the tenancy has been and continues to be increased, and which, if not executed on the tenancy, is either executed directly for benefit, or is, after execution made directly beneficial to it. Explanation I-It includes among other things : (a) the construction of wells and other works for the storage or supply of water for agricultural purposes; (b) the construction of works for drainage and for protection against floods; (c) the planting of trees, the reclaiming, enclosing, levelling and terracing of land for agricultural purposes and other works of a like nature; (d) the erection of buildings required for the more convenient or profitable cultivation of a tenancy; and (e) the renewal or reconstruction of any of the foregoing works, or such alterations therein, or additions thereto, as are not of the nature of mere repairs and as durably increase their value. But it does include such clearance, embankments, levellings, enclosures, temporary wells and water channels as are made by tenants in the ordinary course of cultivation and without any special expenditure, or any other benefit accruing to land from the ordinary operations of husbandry. Explanation II-A work which benefits several tenancies may be deemed to be, with respect to each of them, an improvement. Explanation III-A work executed by a tenant is not an improvement if it substantially diminishes the value of any other part of his landlord''s property. 64(1) A tenant having right of occupancy may make improvements on his tenancy with the assent of his landlord. (2) If at any time the question arises whether or not the landlord assented to the making of an improvement by a tenant not having a right of occupancy the assent may be inferred from circumstances. 65. Improvements made by a tenant before commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been made in accordance with this Act unless in the case of tenant not having a right of occupancy it is shown that the improvement was made in contravention of a written agreement between him and his landlord."

It was the contention of Mr. Wasan that supply of electricity to the tube-well was an improvement and for that assent of the landlord was imperative.

WE do not think Mr. Wasan is right in his submission. Moreover we have to see the complaint from the angle of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There cannot be any dispute that complainant in the present case was a consumer if he deposited necessary charges for release of electric connection to him. There was certainly deficiency in service when the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not release the electric connection. They were bound by Instruction No. 23 and the District Forum rightly held that refusal to release the electric connection is clearly deficiency in service on their part. Mr. Wasan submits that the instructions are administrative and could not go beyond the law as contained in Punjab Tenancy Act. For one thing we do not find any contradiction and secondly if the petitioner-landlord has a right under the Punjab Act they could well approach the Civil Court. Petitioner is stranger in the proceedings before the District Forum in view of the instructions which require the Electricity Board to give electric connection to the tenants. Mr. Wasan also said that civil suit had been filed which was pending. But the plaint of that suit is not before us and we do not know what were the reliefs claimed by the petitioner therein against the respondents. Accordingly these revision petitions fail and are dismissed. Revision Petitions dismissed.