Disposed¶18

Ashis Chandra Dutta and Ors. v. Buddhadeb Sarkar and Ors.

Calcutta HC1 Apr 2026MAT/582/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court M.A.T. 582 of 2026 disposed 01.04.2026 (Shampa Sarkar & Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ.): no illegality found in single Judge's order directing CESC to grant new electricity connection/new meter to writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) from common meter board; CESC complied; grant of electricity is not proof of tenancy and creates no equity; possession/right-of-occupation dispute between landlords and tenant left to civil court; appellants may proceed with eviction notice; new connection subject to civil court order.

What did the court decide?

Appeal and connected application disposed of; appellants remain at liberty to proceed in accordance with law (eviction notice already issued); the new electricity connection stands subject to any order that may be passed by a civil court. ¶18

Ashis Chandra Dutta and Ors. Vs Buddhadeb Sarkar and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the learned single Judge directing a new electricity connection (new meter) to respondent No. 1, the writ petitioner, is illegal and liable to be set aside. +2 more

¶10

Court's answer

No illegality is found in the impugned order; the learned Court had directed CESC to grant electricity by installing a new meter to the writ petitioner from the common meter board position, and CESC has complied with the order.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Grant of electricity is not a proof of tenancy; the appellants' apprehension that the writ petitioner would use the CESC connection as proof of his lawful occupation is misconceived.

¶17

Key takeaways

The grant of electricity pursuant to the impugned order will not create any equity in favour of the writ petitioner; if the appellants succeed in evicting him in accordance with law, the natural consequence will follow, and the new connection is subject to any order that may be passed by a civil court.ratio¶17
The court declined to adjudicate the writ petitioner's right of occupation; that issue will be decided by a civil court, while the appellants, who have already issued an eviction notice, remain at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

M.A.T. 582 of 2026 (High Court at Calcutta, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Side; Shampa Sarkar and Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ.; decided 01.04.2026): Appeal by the premises owners (Ashis Chandra Dutta & Ors.) against the learned single Judge's order directing CESC to install a new meter and grant electricity to respondent No. 1, the writ petitioner. The bench found no illegality in the impugned order, noting that CESC had complied. It held that grant of electricity is not a proof of tenancy and creates no equity in favour of the writ petitioner, and that the new connection will be subject to any order passed by a civil court. The question of the writ petitioner's right of occupation was expressly left to a civil court; the appellants, who have already issued an eviction notice, remain free to proceed in accordance with law. The appeal and the connected application (CAN 1 of 2026) were disposed of.

¶1

01.04.2026 Court No. 12 Item No. 06 Sandip

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

M.A.T. 582 of 2026 IA No : CAN 1 of 2026

¶4

Ashis Chandra Dutta & Ors. -Versus-

¶5

Buddhadeb Sarkar & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Prajnadeepta Roy, Mr. Arindam Peyada, Ms. Sohini Kundu, Mr. Debojyoti Goswami

¶7

…..for the appellants Mr. Soham Sanyal

¶8

….for the CESC.

¶9

Mr. Chandan Misra, Ms. Shreya Sinha ….for the respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7.

¶10

The appellants claim to be the owner of a premise in respect of which new connection was directed to be effected by the learned single Judge, in favour of the respondent No. 1.

¶11

It is submitted that the appellants could not appear before the learned single Judge due to network issues.

¶12

The appellants also content that, initially the writ petitioner had a separate connection which was surrendered thereafter. The writ petitioner came into possession later, i.e., in 2022 and was enjoying the supply from one of the appellants, as such there was no need for a new electric meter. The dispute is between the landlords and the tenant. Nothing prevents the CESC Limited from granting new connection to

¶13

¶14

the occupier of the premises irrespective of the nature of occupation.

¶15

We do not find any illegality in the order impugned. The learned Court directed CESC to grant electricity by installing a new meter to the writ petitioner from the common meter board position. CESC has complied with the order. The issue of possession is not in dispute, but the appellants submit that the possession is unlawful.

¶16

The appellants have already issued an eviction notice. The appellants are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Insofar as, the right of the writ petition is concerned, we are not inclined to go into such issue and the same will be decided by a civil court.

¶17

Grant of electricity is not a proof of tenancy. Thus, the apprehension of the appellants that the writ petitioner will use the grant of electricity provided by CESC as a proof of his lawful occupation in respect of the premises, is absolutely misconceived. The grant of electricity on the basis of the order impugned will not create any equity in favour of the writ petitioner. In the event the appellants succeed in evicting the writ petitioner in accordance with law, natural consequence will follow. The grant of new connection will be subject to any order that may be passed by a civil court.

¶18

Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of.

¶19

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.

¶20

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

¶21

¶22

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

Ashis Chandra Dutta and Ors. v. Buddhadeb Sarkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashis Chandra Dutta and Ors. v. Buddhadeb Sarkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Chakraborty Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mira Shaw Vs West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Ors.

Dharmendra Kumar Yadav and Anr. Vs the Howrah Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ashis Chandra Dutta and Ors. Vs Sukumar Pal and Ors.

Ashis Chandra Dutta and Ors. Vs Biswanath Kantha and Ors.

Arun Biswas and Anr. Vs Purnima Saha and Ors.