Court No. 6 (265719) 28.09.2026 (AD 29) (S. Banerjee) CO 3382 of 2026 Mrs. Nupur Guha Roy & Ors. Vs. Grilling Beans Private Limited & Anr. Mr. Arindam Kundu Mr. Ashok Nandy Mr. Prasant Sen …for the petitioners Mr. Prantick Ghosh Mr. Subhashis Saha Ms. Samima Akter …for the opposite-parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against order no. 28 dated June 22, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 2nd Court at Barasat, North 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 335 of 2024. By the order impugned the application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the opposite-parties praying for installation of a new meter in his name in the suit property at his own cost, stood allowed. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the opposite-party no. 1 is not a lawful occupier in respect of the property in question. No valid agreement was entered into between the petitioners and the opposite-party no. 1. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners further submits 2 that the opposite-party no. 1 is a rank trespasser in respect of the property in question and for such reason the opposite-party no. 1 is not entitled to take new meter in his own name at the suit property. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner places reliance upon a decision of a coordinate Bench in the case of Rohit Cargo Movers –Vs.- CESC Limited & Ors., reported at 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1025 in support of his contention that only a lawful occupant is entitled to supply of electricity. Learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 1 disputes the aforesaid submission of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. He submits that the opposite-party no. 1 is an occupier in respect of the premises in question. He further submits that Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 enables an occupier to apply for electricity and the distribution licensee is obliged to give supply of electricity to an occupier on a request being made. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 uses the expression ‘occupier’ and not ‘lawful occupier’. A coordinate Bench in WP No. 25405(W) of 2008 (‘Fashion’ Proprietor Aswani Kumar Maity –Vs.- West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors.) 3 took note of the change of law from the concept of ‘lawful occupier’ in the Electricity Act, 1910 to the concept of ‘occupier’ simplicitor in the Electricity Act, 2003. The coordinate Bench in the said decision after noting the provisions of Section 43 and 44 of the 2003 Act and Section 12(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 which defines the expression ‘occupier’, held that Section 43 of the 2003 Act makes it incumbent on a licensee to supply electricity to an owner or occupier of a premises. It was held that it is, probably, inappropriate to compare Section 43 of the 2003 Act with Section 12(6) of the 1910 Act. The Bench further held that if the law of the land provides that a person in possession of a premises may not be dispossessed therefrom except in accordance with law, it is implicit that the possession of the person is protected till such time that an appropriate forum holds otherwise and the person is removed from the premises under due process of law. It is further held that it would then defy reason to suggest that such person can continue to be in possession but be denied an essential utility as electricity which is within the broad sweep of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Another coordinate Bench in the case of Santosh Jaiswal –Vs.- CESC Limited & Ors., reported at (2008) 3 WBLR 413 held that if an applicant for supply of 4 electricity if found to be in actual possession of any portion of a premises at which supply has been prayed is entitled to such supply without any duty being cast on the licensee to ascertain whether such possession is legal or illegal; however, supply would obviously be without prejudice to the owner’s right to have an order of eviction against the occupier in a duly constituted proceeding. In Rohit Cargo Movers (supra), the coordinate Bench in paragraph 32 also held that a consideration of Section 43 cannot have any element of ‘lawfulness’ to qualify the occupation of the applicant. Thus, the decision in the case of Rohit Cargo Movers (supra) does not come to the aid of the petitioners but it supports the case of the opposite- party no. 1. From the aforesaid discussion it follows that an occupier is entitled to apply before the distribution licensee for supply of electricity and upon such a request being made the said authority is under a statutory obligation to effect supply of electricity to the premises. It is now well-settled that the issue whether the occupier is in lawful occupation of a property cannot 5 be a relevant factor at the time of discharging of a statutory duty by a distribution licensee. The learned trial judge observed that the plaintiff/opposite-party no. 1 is still in possession of the suit premises as the defendants have admitted that the plaintiff is an occupier of the suit premises. The learned trial judge also noted that the defendants have not filed any counter-claim praying for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit property. The learned trial judge was right in holding that unless and until the plaintiff is evicted in accordance with the procedure established by law, is an occupier and has a right to enjoy all the amenities which he had been enjoying as an occupier and as such he cannot be denied the essential utilities which are within the broad arena of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned trial judge, to the mind of this Court, applied the correct legal tests while deciding an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code at the instance of an occupier praying for supply of electricity by way of installation of a new meter in his name in the suit property. For such reason this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 6 At this stage the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners prays for a direction upon the learned trial judge to dispose of Title Suit No. 335 of 2025 expeditiously. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 2nd Court at Barasat, North 24 Parganas shall make an endeavour to dispose of Title Suit No. 335 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Accordingly, this revisional application stands disposed of. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)