AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 30.09.2011 in C.C. No. 62/2011 passed by the District Forum, Mandya. The brief facts are that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing Khatha No. D-8/220-11181 carved out of Sy. No. 819/1 situate at Sugar Factory Circle, Mandya. The respondent No. 2 herein contending to be a tenant in respect of the premises had instituted the proceedings before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Mandya in C.C. No. 62/2011 making out certain allegations against the respondent No. 1 herein, since the electricity meter had been transferred in favour of the petitioner herein who is the owner of the property. The District Consumer Redressal Forum had entertained the complaint and the impugned order dated 30.09.2011 has been passed in favour of the respondent No. 2 herein. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the said order is before this Court.
Though contentions have been urged on behalf of the parties, it is seen that in similar set of circumstances, the owner of another property was before this Court in W.P. No. 39150/2011. This Court while disposing of the petition on 12.02.2013 was of the view that such compliant without impleading the petitioner therein as a party to the said proceedings was not maintainable and in that context has set aside the order. The position is similar in the instant case inasmuch as the petitioner herein was also not impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the District Consumer Redressal Forum. That apart, this Court has also taken note of the fact that the respondent No. 2 therein who was similar to the respondent No. 2 herein had an alternate remedy and only after exhausting the said remedy, it was open to him to initiate such other proceedings. In that view, the impugned order dated 30.09.2011 herein also would not be sustainable. The same is accordingly quashed. In terms of the above, the petition stand disposed of.