(Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 27.2.2004 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant-defendant-tenant's Special Civil Application in which the appellant had challenged the order dated 1.1.2004 of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad.
2.During pendency of HRP Suit No. 1523 of 2001 filed by the respondent-landlord against the present appellant, the landlord filed application Exh. 14 under Section 11(4) of the Bombay Rent Act. By order dated 4.3.2003, the learned Small Causes Court Judge directed the appellant to deposit Rs.11,165/- towards electricity charges and also directed the appellant to pay 50% of the electricity bills as and when the payments become due. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed Civil Revision Application No. 14 of 2003 which came to be partly allowed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. While the direction requiring the appellant to deposit Rs.11,165/- towards the past electricity charges was confirmed, the direction for payment of future electricity charges was modified to the effect that the appellant-tenant shall pay Rs.1,500/- per month towards electricity charges as purely a temporary arrangement till the suit is finally decided. For giving this direction, the appellate Bench fixed the appellant's share at one third of the electricity bills.
Being aggrieved by the above order of the Appellate Bench, the appellant herein filed a Special Civil Application which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge with a clarification that the appellant shall be at liberty to apply for a separate electrical connection in the premises in his occupation.
3.Mr Saurabh J Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the premises in occupation of the appellant being much smaller, the Appellate Bench ought not to have directed the appellant to pay Rs.1,500/- per month as electricity charges and that too without reference to the actual bills.
4.Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the order under challenge passed by the Appellate Bench, as confirmed by the learned Single Judge, is only an interlocutory order by which a purely temporary arrangement has been evolved till the suit is finally decided. Whatever payments the appellant has made or will be making pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Appellate Bench will be on a purely temporary basis and subject to the outcome of the HRP suit. It is open to the appellant to raise all available contentions including the contention that depending on the actual bi-monthly bills for electricity charges which have been issued by the Ahmedabad Electricity Co., the appellant should not be required to pay Rs.1,500/= per month towards electricity charges.
5.Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the appeal is disposed of.
6.Since the appeal is disposed of, the Civil Application does not survive and the same also stands disposed of accordingly.
(M.S. Shah, J.) (D.H. Waghela, J.) sundar/-