Bombay High Court
Agricultural Produce Market ... vs Vikas S/O Ramchandra Balki And ... on 3 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003 (2) BomCR 291, 2002 (4) MhLj 864
Author: S Bobde
Bench: S Bobde
JUDGMENT
S.A. Bobde, J.
1. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.
2. The only question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is as to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under Clauses 14 and 14-A of the Rent Control Order, 1949 to direct installation of electricity in new premises.
3. Clauses 14 and 14-A of Rent Control Order read as follows :
"14. No landlord shall interfere with the electric fittings, water connections or the structure of the [premises] so as to affect materially the enjoyment of the house by the tenant.
14-A. No landlord shall, except with the previous written permission of the Controller, take any steps for discontinuing the supply of water or electricity to a [premises] under occupation of a tenant."
4. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner which is incorporated under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 constructed certain shop premises and auctioned them. The 1st respondent was one of the bidders and he agreed to the terms and conditions of auction. Clause 7 of the terms and conditions of the auction provides for an execution of a lease-deed on a stamp paper in favour of the successful bidder at the cost of the bidder. Clause 8 of the auction provides that the allottee of the shop shall pay the electricity charges, taxes etc.
5. On these points there is a dispute between the parties. According to Mr. Choudhari, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the petitioner has already accepted the entire amount and it is the petitioner who has not executed the
agreement and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of its wrong. Having considered the matter, it appears that the 1st respondent may have a genuine case and may have equity in his favour; However, it is not possible to infer from Clauses 14 and 14-A, reproduced supra, the power in the Rent Control to direct installation of an electric meter or fittings in a newly allotted or acquired premises. It is clear that Clause 14 is an injunction against the landlords from interfering with the electric fitting, water connection etc. Clause 14-A is an injunction against the landlords from taking any steps for discontinuing the supply of, inter alia, electricity. This is neither a case where the landlord, i.e. the petitioner, is purportedly interfering with the electric fittings nor a case where the petitioner is taking any steps for discontinuing the electricity supply. It is a case where the petitioner has not granted its No Objection for installation of electricity in the premises on the ground that the 1st respondent has not acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of auction. There is, therefore, merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer Clause (a).
6. At this stage, Mr. Choudhari, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, states that the 1st respondent is entitled to assail the very right in a Civil Court and also entitled to ask for such relief as may be advised in the matter of electricity also. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent is granted liberty to approach the Civil Court within a period of one month from the date of this order. The petitioner shall not discontinue or cause to be discontinued the electricity supply to the 1st respondent's premises for a period of one month. This direction is being given in view of the admitted position that the 1st respondent has been receiving the supply of electricity in the premises since the last two years.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
