AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEARD learned Lawyers of both sides. Admittedly, the appellant is a tenant under respondent-3 in respect of the disputed premises. Respondent-3 has filed a suit for eviction of the appellant upon determination of the tenancy and that is pending before Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 1st Court, Hooghly. It is also admitted that in that suit the present appellant filed a petition seeking consent of the landlord for obtaining the electric connection in the disputed premises. It is accepted that the said petition was dismissed by the Trial Court. On revision, the learned District Judge did not interfere with the said order. The present appellant moved the Hon''ble High Court in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the District Judge, Hooghly. The Hon''ble Court did not interfere on the ground that the specific Forum for a particular purpose has been provided under Section 36 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The Hon''ble Court, however, observed that the petitioner, the appellant here was free to approach the Rent Controller for the said purpose.
IT appears that the appellant had chosen not to approach the Rent Controller, but moved the Forum raising a claim that he was entitled to get electric connection. He also prayed for suitable direction upon opposite party-2. IT appears further that Forum considered the matter in all respects and held that the present appellant was not entitled to get any relief on the ground that the principle of res judicata are applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the Forum to the effect that the principle of res judicata are applicable to the case is erroneous. IT appears that in support of his observation, the Forum cited several authorities to come to the conclusion that the principle of res judicata are applicable in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. We have considered the submission of learned Lawyer for the appellant and considered the pronouncements cited by the Forum and we do not see any illegality in the observation of the Forum in this regard. As noticed earlier, the application of the present appellant for electric connection in the disputed premises was before the Trial Court. He carried the matter in revision and became unsuccessful. The matter was carried to the Hon''ble Court where he did not get any success. The Hon''ble Court observed that the petitioner ought to have approached the Statutory Authority and as such did not interfere with the case. It is unfortunate that the present appellant did not approach the Rent Controller. Instead, he has approached the Forum. Having considered all the circumstances, we think that the appeal is without any substance and as such we decline to interfere. The Appeal fails and is dismissed on contest but without any cost. Appeal dismissed.