Disposed¶21

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

Calcutta HC1 Apr 2026MAT/583/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

M.A.T. 583 of 2026, Calcutta High Court, 01.04.2026, Shampa Sarkar J. and Ajay Kumar Gupta J.; CESC Limited new electricity connection; new meter installation; common meter board; landlord-tenant dispute; writ petitioner possession 2022; surrendered connection; grant of electricity not proof of tenancy; no equity from electricity grant; eviction notice; civil court to decide right of occupation; appeal disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Appeal and connected application disposed of; impugned order of the learned single Judge upheld (no illegality found); appellants left free to pursue eviction in accordance with law; the new electricity connection to remain subject to any order of a civil court. ¶21

Ashis Chandra Dutta and Ors. Vs Sukumar Pal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the learned single Judge directing CESC to install a new meter and grant an electricity connection to respondent No. 1 contains any illegality warranting interference in this appeal. +2 more

¶13

Court's answer

No illegality is found in the impugned order of the learned single Judge directing CESC to grant electricity to the writ petitioner by installing a new meter from the common meter board position; CESC has already complied with the order.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The appellants, having already issued an eviction notice, are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law; this Court is not inclined to decide the right of the writ petition, which will be decided by a civil court.

¶19

Key takeaways

Grant of electricity is not a proof of tenancy; the appellants' apprehension that the writ petitioner will use the CESC connection as proof of lawful occupation is misconceived, the grant creates no equity in favour of the writ petitioner, and the new connection is subject to any order passed by a civil court.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

M.A.T. appeal against a learned single Judge's order directing CESC Limited to install a new meter and grant an electricity connection to respondent No. 1 (the writ petitioner) from the common meter board position. The Bench found no illegality in the impugned order, noting that CESC had already complied. It held that grant of electricity is not proof of tenancy and creates no equity in favour of the writ petitioner; the appellants, who had issued an eviction notice, remain free to proceed in accordance with law, while the question of the writ petitioner's right of occupation is left to be decided by a civil court, the new connection remaining subject to any such civil court order. The appeal and connected application were disposed of.

¶1

01.04.2026 Court No. 12 Item No. 07 Sandip

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

M.A.T. 583 of 2026 IA No : CAN 1 of 2026

¶4

Ashis Chandra Dutta & Ors. -Versus-

¶5

Sukumar Pal & Ors.

¶6

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

¶7

Mr. Debojyoti Goswami

¶8

…..for the appellants

¶9

Mr. Aayush Sharma

¶10

….for the CESC.

¶11

Mr. Chandan Misra, Ms. Shreya Sinha

¶12

….for the respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7.

¶13

1. 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.

¶14

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

¶15

1. 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

¶16

¶17

granting new connection to the occupier of the premises irrespective of the nature of occupation.

¶18

1. 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.

¶19

1. 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.

¶20

1. 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.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

¶25

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Arun Biswas and Anr. Vs Purnima Saha and Ors.