In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought certain reliefs against the Cantonment Board (respondent No. 1) and its officer (respondent No. 2) regarding supply of water to the premises in the petitioner's occupation.
2.The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the said premises and contends that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are his landlords. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, however, dispute the alleged relationship of landlord and tenant and the dispute between the parties is already subject matter of HRP Suit No. 616 of 2001 filed by the present petitioner against respondent Nos. 3 to 5 for a permanent injunction that the petitioner may not be dispossessed from the premises in question without following the due process of law. In the said suit, the plaintiff preferred an interim injunction application and the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad passed an ad-interim order dated 24.5.2001 granting ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff in terms of para 9-A of the application which para reads as under :-
injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 and also defendant No. 2 and 3 who are claiming through defendant No. 1 and acting for and on behalf, their agents, servants, contractors etc. from disconnecting any of the essential supplies to the responsibility of the petitioner including the electricity supply, water supply or sewerage connections to the WC in any manner whatsoever or to create any hindrance in the peaceful and lawful usage of the tenanted premises or to dispossess the plaintiff without due process of law."
After hearing the other side i.e. respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein, the Small Causes Court confirmed the said ad-interim order till final disposal of the suit. That order of the Small Causes Court passed on 18.9.2001 is at Annexure "E" to the petition. The suit is still pending before the Small Causes Court.
3.There was also a dispute between the parties about electricity supply to the premises in question. Regarding the said dispute, the petitioner approached the City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad and under the provisions of Section 23-A of the Bombay Rent Act, the City Deputy Collector passed order dated 31.7.2001 permitting the petitioner to obtain a new electricity connection at his own costs without claiming any amount from respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
4.The petitioner's grievance in the present petition is that the Cantonment Board is not supplying the water connection to the tenanted premises being occupied by the petitioner and, therefore, appropriate directions are required to be issued. Interim directions are also prayed for. The Cantonment Board has rejected the petitioner's application for separate water connection as per its decision dated 6.11.2001 in the following terms:-
Request for separate water connection Shri SM Saiyed tenant of part of House No. 560 Camp Sadar Bazar has applied for separate water connection from Board and he has submitted that owner is not ready to give NOC for the purpose.
The legal opinion of the Cantonments Board legal advisor Shri Kishore B Khatwani in this matter was taken and placed before the Board for consideration.
Res.No.4 Considered and unanimously resolved to reject the application as the tenant under these circumstances has no right to seek independent water connection from the Board."
It, therefore, appears that the only ground on which the Cantonment Board has rejected the petitioner's application is the absence of NOC from the owner of the premises.
5.Mr Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a right to get essential services like water and electricity and the Competent Court/authority have already passed the orders in favour of the petitioner. Hence the Cantonment Board is not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for a separate water connection. Mr Brahmbhatt further points out from the pleadings that Mr Kishore B Khatwani on whose legal advice the Board has acted also happens to be the advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the criminal case No. 129 of 2001 filed by the petitioner's son against the landlords-respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein and that, therefore, it cannot be said that the legal advice made available to the Cantonment Board is a bona fide advice.
6.Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein are represented by advocate Mr DM Kiratsata who submits that the petitioner is not a tenant and that any consent by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 would prejudice their case before the Small Causes Court that the petitioner is not a tenant of the premises in question and, therefore, they are objecting to any separate water supply being granted to the petitioner.
7.Ms Parinda Davawala learned counsel for the Cantonment Board submits that the Board has been unnecessarily dragged into this litigation and that without the consent of the owner of the premises, the Board cannot give water connection to the petitioner.
8.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to the Court that when the Small Causes Court has already passed ad-interim order dated 24.5.2001 and has confirmed the same on 18.9.2001 restraining the landlord from disconnecting essential supplies to the petitioner including electricity supply, water supply and sewerage connection, and considering the fact that the aforesaid ad-interim relief as confirmed on 18.9.2001 has already been brought to the notice of the Cantonment Board and even thereafter the Cantonment Board has decided to reject the petitioner's representation as per the last decision dated 11.3.2002 as communicated to the petitioner vide intimation dated 18.3.2002, it appears to the Court that in the facts and circumstances of the case the following direction is required to be issued:-
(i) The Cantonment Board shall give a separate water connection to the petitioner at the premises No. 560/1 (First Floor), Bal Bhavan, Camp Sadar Bazar, Ahmedabad within one week from the date on which the petitioner deposits the requisite amount for this purpose.
(ii) As regards the amount to be deposited by the petitioner for water connection, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall inform the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court.
(iii) It is clarified that this direction is given without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in HRP Suit No. 616 of 2001.
It is directed accordingly.
9.The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions.
Direct Service is permitted.
(M.S. Shah, J.) sundar/-