TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Hanif, the husband of Sabra Bano was occupying a portion of his building as tenant. That suit is still pending. During the pendency of that suit, it appears from the record that, the electricity supply being supplied to the portion in occupation of Mohd. Hanif and Sabra Bano was disconnected. A grievance was made in that context by Sabra Bano to appropriate Rent Controlling Authority of Ratlam. The said Authority declared that Sabra Bano was not the tenant of the said portion of the building occupied by both Mohd. Hanif and Sabra Bano. 3. The record shows that thereafter Sabra Bano made an application to concerned authority for the purpose of getting electricity supply under the scheme initiated by M. P. Govt., commonly known as EK BATTT CONNECTION . She got the electricity supply in the said portion of the house (hereinafter mentioned as tenement for convenience). For sometime, she used that electricity supply connection but thereafter it was disconnected by MPEB on account of a complaint made by Respondent No. 3 Mohd. Issac. Before that Sabra Bano had filed the present suit in the court of Civil Judge, Class II, Ratlam bearing Civil Suit No. 37-A/94. 4. In the matter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute between Mohd. Hanif, the husband of Sabra Bano and Mohd. Issac. Shri Surjit Singh further submitted that the MPEB would be supplying electricity supply in accordance with provisions of law only after obtaining no objection certificate from the owner of the building. He further clarified that Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 would be obeying the order passed by the court in this context. 7. Shri S. C. Bagadia, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 argued that by no stretch of imagination Sabra Bano can be treated as tenant. If at all any body can be claimed as tenant, he is Mohd. Hanif and he can make a grievance in this context before Rent Controlling Authority, Ratlam in view of provisions of sections 38 and 45 of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Rent Act). He further pointed that such grievance was made by Sabra Bano before Rent Controlling Authority and that has been rightly dismissed and, therefore, Sabra Bano had no legal right to file a suit which has been filed by her in the nature of present suit. He argued further that when the trial Court was deciding Ex. P. 6 it rightly concluded that the suit which has been brought by Sabra Bano by co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her) against her own husband Mohd. Hanif alleging that he was the tenant of the tenement. (ii) Sabra Bano had herself moved an application before Rent Controlling Authority, Ratlam making a grievance about disconnecting of the electricity supply provided to the tenement. (iii) The Rent Controlling Authority had dismissed her application declaring that she was not the 'tenant' of the tenement. (iv) Sabra Bano should have informed the court that though she was not 'tenant' of tenement she had obtained the said electricity supply connection under the scheme 'EK BATTI CONNECTION'. Sabra Bano did not inform the court about these facts and, therefore, she was guilty of concealing these material facts from the notice of court. 10. When Sabra Bano was making a prayer to the court for getting ad interim injunction in her favour and against the respondents directing the respondents not to disconnect the said electricity supply, it was her duty to inform the court that after obtaining the said connection, she used that electricity supply for the purpose of getting light in the tenement from other number points. A litigant coming to the court for the purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant claims to have the electricity supply in the tenement where she is residing as the daughter of Respondent No. 3, being the head of the family, the said electricity supply cannot be obtained from Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 unless consented to by Respondent No. 3. If she wants to have such electricity supply to tenement otherwise than the daughter of Respondent No. 3, it cannot be obtained unless Respondent No. 3, the owner of the building, permits her and Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to do so. The family members of the tenant cannot have the right of getting electricity supply in the tenement keeping aside the said tenant and the owner of the building, independently. The court cannot compel MPEB and its concerned officers to provide such electricity supply to such persons against relevant legislation. 15. In view of provisions of section 45 of Rent Act, civil court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in which a grievance has been made in respect of non-supply of electricity to the appellant by Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. When such grievance was made, it has been dismissed by Rent Controlling Authority, Ratlam. When that was so, the appellant (original plaintiff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
