Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vijendra Dhuri Singh, filed a suit for mandatory injunction against Chetak Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Respondent No.1), BSES Ltd. (Respondent No.2), and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (Respondent No.3) seeking directions to fix an electric meter and install a telephone connection in garages Nos. 2 and 3 situated in the society's premises. The appellant claimed occupation of the garages pursuant to an agreement dated 27.2.1993 with one Bhiku on monthly compensation of Rs.200/- from 1.3.1993. He applied for an electric connection to BSES, which was ready to provide it, but the society opposed and obstructed. The appellant sought police help but to no avail, leading to the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellant appealed. The High Court noted that the appellant had given up the claim for telephone connection. The core legal issue was whether an occupant without title can claim a right to electricity against the objection of the society which owns the land. The appellant argued that he was in possession and had a right to electricity under the Electricity Act. The respondent society contended that the garages were on society land and the appellant had no right. The court held that the appellant had no legal right to electricity as he was not the owner and the society, as owner, had the right to object. The amendment to the Electricity Act does not confer an absolute right on an occupant without title. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decision.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Right to Electricity - Occupant Without Title - The appellant, claiming occupation of garages under an agreement with a third party, sought mandatory injunction against the housing society for electric connection. The court held that the appellant had no right to electricity as he was not the owner and the society, as owner of the land, had the right to object. The amendment to the Electricity Act does not confer an absolute right on an occupant without title. (Paras 1-5)
B) Electricity Law - Installation of Electric Meter - Consent of Owner - The court held that the electric supply company cannot install a meter on the society's property without the society's consent. The appellant's application for electricity does not create a right against the society. (Paras 3-5)
C) Civil Procedure - Mandatory Injunction - Discretionary Relief - The court held that mandatory injunction is a discretionary relief and cannot be granted in favour of a person who has no legal right. The trial court's refusal to grant injunction was upheld. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person in occupation of garages pursuant to an agreement with a third party (not the owner) has a right to get electric connection against the objection of the housing society which owns the land.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The trial court's order refusing mandatory injunction is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Right to electricity is not absolute for an occupant without title
- society's consent required for installation of electric meter on common property
- amendment to Electricity Act does not override property rights of society
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (09) 47
First Appeal No. 1395 of 2005
Mr. D. Dwivedi for the Appellant, Mr. R. K. Bhasin for the Respondent No.1
Chetak Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., B.S.E.S. Ltd., Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against dismissal of suit for mandatory injunction
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought mandatory injunction directing BSES and MTNL to fix electric meter and install telephone connection in garages, and permanent injunction against society from obstructing
Filing Reason
Society obstructed installation of electric meter despite appellant's application and police help
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit
Issues
Whether the appellant, as an occupant without title, has a right to get electric connection against the objection of the housing society?
Whether the amendment to the Electricity Act confers an absolute right on an occupant to electricity?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued he was in possession and had a right to electricity under the Electricity Act.
Respondent society argued that the garages were on society land and the appellant had no right to electricity without society's consent.
Ratio Decidendi
An occupant without title cannot claim a right to electricity against the objection of the owner of the land. The amendment to the Electricity Act does not confer an absolute right on an occupant without title.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent No.1.
Appellant is the original Plaintiff and Respondents are the original Defendants.
Appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to direct them to fix electric meter and install telephone connection in the suit premises i.e. garages bearing garage Nos. 2 and 3...
It was the case of the plaintiff that he was in occupation and possession of the garages Nos. 2 and 3 pursuant to Agreement dated 27.2.1993 executed between one Bhiku and himself on monthly compensation of Rs.200/- from 1.3.1993.
The plaintiff wanted to have electric connection. He applied to the defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 were ready to give connection for electricity but the defendant No.1 society opposed and obstructed, even the police help was taken but of no use.
Therefore, he was constrained to file the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.
According to the plaintiff he has a right to get electric supply because he was in occupation of the premises and by virtue of the amendment to the Electricity Act.
The trial Court dismissed the suit.
I have considered the submissions.
In my view, the appellant has no right to get electric connection.
He is not the owner of the garages. He is only an occupant under an agreement with Bhiku.
The society is the owner of the land on which the garages are situated.
The society has the right to object to the installation of electric meter on its property.
The amendment to the Electricity Act does not give an absolute right to an occupant to get electricity without the consent of the owner.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
Procedural History
Appellant filed suit for mandatory injunction in trial court; trial court dismissed suit; appellant filed first appeal before Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
