Sri Rajendra Kumar Chopra And ... vs Cesc Limited And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2029 Cal

AD-08
Ct No.09
27.03.2023
TN
                              WPA No. 5932 of 2023

                       Sri Rajendra Kumar Chopra and others
                                      Vs.
                              CESC Limited and others


             Mr. Soumyen Datta,
             Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sadhukhan
                                                .... for the petitioners

             Mr. Amitava Chaudhuri,
             Mr. N. Roy
                                             .... for the CESC Limited

             Ms. Anyasha Das
                                           .... for the respondent no.3

The supplementary affidavit filed in court today

by learned counsel for the petitioners be kept on

record.

It is disclosed from the annexures to the said

supplementary affidavit that the petitioners herein are

enjoying a decree declaring that the petitioners'

partnership firm is a tenant in respect of the premises

under the private respondent (defendant in the suit)

and that the defendant and/or his men/agents have

no right to take forcible possession of the suit

premises otherwise than in due process of law. The

defendant/private respondent and/or his men and

agents were further restrained by a decree of

permanent injunction from taking forcible possession

of the suit premises otherwise than in due process of

law.

Learned counsel appearing for the CESC

Limited supports the contention of the petitioners that

due to resistance put up by the private respondent,

the connection is not being given to the petitioners.

Learned counsel appearing for the private

respondent/landlord submits that her client does not

have instruction with regard to the decree at all.

Hence, learned counsel seeks an opportunity to file an

affidavit-in-opposition thereby disclosing relevant

facts.

However, on query of court, it is evident that the

only reason why the private respondent is seeking to

affirm affidavit is to have further instructions on the

ex parte decree.

However, since photocopies of certified copies of

the ex parte decree and the connected judgment have

been annexed to the supplementary affidavit by the

petitioners and are being produced before this court

on oath, a presumption of correctness is attached to

those. There cannot be any conceivable reason to

disbelieve the said documents.

Thus, the petitioners have, indeed, obtained a

decree, although ex parte, against the

defendant/private respondent as indicated above. It

is well-settled that an ex parte decree has equal legal

force and binding value as a contested decree and the

court cannot distinguish between the two for the

purpose of considering whether the same is binding

upon the parties thereto. In such view of the matter,

there is no scope of disregarding the decree of the civil

court.

Such decree shows the possession of the

petitioners. It is trite that Section 43 of the Electricity

Act, 2003, empowers the occupier of a premises to

take independent electricity connection.

Hence, there is no reason why the petitioners'

prayer for new electricity connection at the premises,

where the petitioners are in occupation, should be

refused.

Accordingly, WPA No. 5932 of 2023 is allowed,

thereby directing the CESC Limited to give a new

electricity connection to the petitioners at the

premises-in-question subject to compliance of all

formalities in that regard by the petitioners, within a

fortnight from date and/or from the date of

compliance of formalities, whichever is later.

In the event any obstruction is raised by the

private respondent and/or his men and agents in

doing so, it will be open to the CESC personnel to

approach the local police station for adequate police

assistance, which will then be given by the said police

station, acting on the basis of the communication of

the learned Advocates for the parties along with a

server copy of this order. In case any padlock or other

hindrance is put up, it will be open to the police

personnel to break open such padlock for the limited

purpose as indicated above. The cost of the police

help shall be paid by the petitioners.

It is further recorded that since no affidavits

have been invited, rather the prayer for affidavits of

the private respondent has been refused, it is deemed

that the allegations made in the writ petition are not

admitted by the respondents. Moreover, it is clarified

that mere giving of an electricity connection to the

petitioners at the premises shall not create any special

right or equity in favour of the petitioners which the

petitioners otherwise do not have in law.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)