AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE appeal is directed against the order passed by the Learned President, CDF in Case No. 6072/91. THE case of the petitioner/appellant is that he is a tenant in respect of flat situated on the ground floor at premises No. 388, Keatala Lane, P.S. Lake under the Sri Suraj Kr. Bose and others and he was paying rent regularly to the Rent Controller, Calcutta, the rent being Rs. 230/- per month.
THE appellant was enjoying separate electric meter vide Consumer No. 0203 1108005 in his own name at Premises No. 388, Keatala Lana, Cal-29. The respondent No. 2 Sri Ashoke Jain not known to the appellant who has no locus standi to file an application, on suppression of material facts before the President, District Forum obtained an order for disconnection of the electric line from the meter of the appellant without notice to the appellant. The respondent No. 1 disconnected the electric line from the electric meter of the appellant on 17.9.92.
The appellant is suffering on account of want of electric energy and submits that the order by the District Forum is illegal as it was passed by a single member.
THE Learned CDF found that the appellant had surrendered his right to Ashoke Jain in respect of his electric meter and left the house. Ashoke Jain it is stated being the prospective buyer of the premises had made an agreement in his favour with the owner of the house as the appellant tenant was not living in the house for the last 20 years. The bill for July, 1991 was due and the appellant had not paid the same. The respondent No. 2 being the prospective buyer of the premises wrote to the Electric Company to disconnect the line and to transfer the meter of the tenant in his name. Accordingly, the President, Calcutta District Forum passed an order for disconnection of the electric line.
IT is submitted by the appellant that the order was passed by a single member of the District Forum and moreover the Respondent No. 2 has no locus standi to file this application before the Forum. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the order passed by the District Forum and order the Respondent No. 1 to reconnect the line of the appellant after following all formalities as Respondent No. 2 could not prove his ownership to the premises occupied by the tenant. Appeal allowed.