9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the dismissal of the suit for declaration and for injunction of electricity supply is illegal. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Dismissal of the Suit for Declaration and Injunction of Electricity Supply The core issue revolves around the legality of dismissing the suit filed by the appellant, seeking a declaration and an injunction to prevent the disconnection of electricity supply. The appellant, Sabra Bano, resides in a portion of a building owned by Respondent No. 3, Mohammad Issac, her father. A pending litigation exists between Mohammad Issac and Sabra Bano's husband, Mohammad Hanif, regarding tenancy. During this litigation, the electricity supply to the portion occupied by Sabra Bano and her husband was disconnected. Sabra Bano's grievance to the Rent Controlling Authority was dismissed, as she was not recognized as a tenant. Sabra Bano applied for an electricity connection under the "EK BATTI CONNECTION" scheme and initially received it. However, it was later disconnected following a complaint by Mohammad Issac. Subsequently, she filed a suit in the Civil Court, Ratlam, which was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. This dismissal was upheld by the first Appellate Court. The appellant's counsel argued that Sabra Bano, as the wife of Mohammad Hanif, a declared tenant, had the right to an unobstructed electricity supply. He contended that the trial court should have passed a decree in her favor, ensuring the continuity of the electricity supply. The counsel for the respondents argued that the electricity supply could only be provided with the owner's consent, and the MPEB would comply with court orders. The court emphasized that Sabra Bano concealed material facts, such as the pending suit against her husband, her application to the Rent Controlling Authority, and the Authority's decision that she was not a tenant. The court noted that a litigant seeking equitable relief must come with clean hands and disclose all relevant facts. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, emphasizing that courts should dismiss suits that are vexatious and meritless. The court concluded that the trial court correctly adjudicated the preliminary issue of jurisdiction and dismissed the suit appropriately. The court further clarified that under the provisions of the Rent Act and relevant electricity supply legislation, the appellant could not obtain an electricity supply without the owner's permission. The court held that the family members of a tenant do not have an independent right to electricity supply without the owner's consent. The court condemned the appellant's attempt to secure relief by concealing material facts and emphasized that such frivolous litigation should be dismissed at the earliest stage. The first Appellate Court's decision to dismiss the appeal was deemed correct, proper, and legal. Conclusion: The trial court rightly dismissed the application for an injunction and the suit by deciding the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The first Appellate Court correctly upheld this decision. The appeal was dismissed with costs, considering the appellant's personal circumstances sympathetically.
|
