1983 PLP 1222 (CLC)

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑This is a petition, in which the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: ‑ (a)' It be declared that the respondent No. 1 had no lawful authority to treat the petitioner's quarter No. 302, P. I. B. Colony, Karachi as a commercial unit since it is a residential property for all theoretical and practical purposes. (b) That the respondent No. I may please be directed to settle all accounts with respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 for the recovery of any legitimate difference which could be lawfully demanded on account of the use of the electricity for commerce and residence. (c) Declaring that the petitioner did not use the said quarter for commercial venture, the respondent No. 1 may be directed to forthwith execute the work for the installation of new electricity meter and supply of electricity to the petitioner at Quarter No. 302, P.

1. B. Colony, Karachi pending action for the recovery of the deficiency or difference in charges on the two‑fold grounds specified above. (d) any other remedy which this Hon'ble Court be pleased to give and grant in the events and circumstances of the case. The petitioner prays for costs. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that there was an electricity meter installed at the quarter in question. It seems that a portion of the above quarter was converted into 4 shops. The occupants of the residential portion as well as commercial portion were having the electricity through the above meter. It further seems that res pondent No. 1 disconnected the electricity on the ground that the arrears were not paid which included the difference between residential and com mercial rates. It also seems that the petitioner had applied for a new meter to respondent No. 1 who declined to grant the above request on the ground that the arrears of the electric charges pertaining to the previous meter were not cleared. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above inaction/refusal has filed the present petition.

2. In support of the above petition, Mr. Faizuddin learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not liable to pay for the electricity consumed by the occupants of the 4 shops though he admits that the same meter was supplying electricity to them. He further contends that under section 22 of the Electricity Act, 1910, respondent No. 1 are obliged to grant a new meter without insisting upon the clearance of the arrears. It may be mentioned that we had asked Mr. Noorul Hassan, Advocate, who has appeared for respondent No. 1 on Court's notice to work out the possibility of granting of a new meter to the petitioner on receiving a tentative amount subject to adjustment. Mr. Noorul Hassan has submitted that as per accounts maintained by respondent No. 1, a sum of Rs. 5,816.49 is due and payable by the petitioner and that respondent No.. 1 will be willing to install a new meter at the residential portion of the quarter on receipt of the above amount and that the petitioner would be given adjustment for the difference between commercial and residential rates after working out average monthly consumption for residential unit as per new meter. However, Mr. Faizuddin has contended that the petitioner is not under any legal obligation to pay any amount in respect of the electricity consumed by the occupants of the 4 shops. In this view of the matter, we will have to consider, whether the petitioner's prayer quoted hereinabove in para. 1 is sustainable in law.

3. Reverting to the first contention of Mr. Faizuddin that the peti tioner is not obliged to pay any‑amount in respect of the electricity consumed by the occupant of the 4 shops it will‑ suffice to observe that the above contention is devoid of any force. The petitioner after having admitted the factum that electricity was received by the occupants of the shops from the same meter/connection, as the owner of the building he is under legal obligation to clear the dues. It may be pertinent to mention that the meter was obtained by the previous owner of the quarter in his own name and, therefore, the petitioner being the purchaser is the successor for all intents and purposes of the previous owner.

4. As regard the second contention that the petitioner is entitled to have a new meter without clearing the arrears of the electricity, it may be stated that the reliance has been placed on section 22 of the Electricity Act, 1910, which reads as follows :‑ "Obligation on license to supply energy. ‑Where energy is supplied by a licensee, every person within the area of. supply shall, except inso far as is otherwise provided by the terms and conditions of the licence, be entitled on application, to a supply on the same terms as those on which any other person in the same area is entitled in similar circumstances to a corresponding supply Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of energy for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such minimum annual sum as will give a reasonable return on the capital expenditure, and will cover standing charges incurred by him in order to meet the possible maximum demand for those premises, the sum payable to be determined in case of difference or dispute by arbitration."

5. A perusal of the above‑quoted section indicates that the provisions of this section have saved the terms of licence under which electricity is or was supplied and it does not provide anything from which it can be inferred that respondent No. I is obliged to grant a new meter without clearance of the arrears of the electricity charges in respect of the previous meter, which was disconnected on account of default in payment of the electricity, charges. If we were to accept the petitioner's contention, it will lead to absurdity, namely, that the defaulters will get their meters disconnected for non‑pay ment of arrears of electricity charges involving lacs of rupees and then force respondent No. 1 to grant a new meter connection without insisting upon the clearance of the arrears.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any force in the above petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. S. Q. Petition dismissed.