MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD.

ORDER

1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑ Prayer in this petition is that respondents who are Karachi Electric Supply Corporation and its two functionaries the Director, Garden Zone and Executive Engineer be directed to install submeter connection at the cost of the petitioner in his tenement or in the alternative submeter bearing No. A1‑455641 which is already installed, be shifted to the premises in occupation of the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the landlord of the building in which he is a tenant is against him and is determined to see that the petitioner does not get the electric connection. It is further submitted that the petitioner made private efforts and succeeded in getting the commercial meter bearing No. AL‑455641 at his own cost but the said meter has been installed in the portion which is under the power and control of the landlord and for some time, the landlord allowed the petitioner benefit of electricity but then started harassing the petitioner for enhancement of rent. Landlord disconnected the electricity and the petitioner filed a suit in the Civil Court for declaration and injunction against the landlord in which it was prayed that the landlord be restrained from making any interference in the process of obtaining sub‑meter connection by the petitioner. Ultimately the said suit was decreed ex parte against the landlord.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No.2, the Director of KESC for sub‑meter which came before respondent No.3 namely the Executive Engineer, KESC for further necessary action and he has demanded No Objection Certificate from the landlord to be produced.

3. In the comments filed by the respondent stand is taken that meter bearing No. AL‑455641 is not in the name of the petitioner but in the name of landlord namely Amjad Hussain Farooqui. Main meter as well as sub‑meter are in the name of landlord and are in the premises which are in his occupation as such no shifting is possible without his permission/no objection. The petitioner is not a consumer but is an occupier. It is further submitted in the comments that Suit No.1022/86 does not debar respondents from asking for No objection Certificate which is their legal requirement as the respondents were not impleaded as party in the suit.

4. Now if the petitioner wants to take action on the basis of decree of the suit and if he feels aggrieved that the same is not being acted upon and he can file an application in that Court according to law. Mr. Noorul Hasan, Advocate has submitted that so far issue of fresh or separate electric connection is concerned, the same is to be granted or not strictly according to the rules which are binding on K . E. S . C . Petitioner has no locus standi to apply for a separate meter because he is only occupant and not the landlord and for all practical purposes landlord of the premises is consumer and the meters are issued in his name. As a tenant, the petitioner has remedy as provided under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for restoration of his amenity and he can apply there. Petitioner has failed to point out to us any provision under which he claims sanction of separate electric meter as a tenant.

5. In the circumstances and for the facts and reasons mentioned above, we find no reason to interfere, as such this petition is dismissed in limine.

6. H . B . T . /M‑351/ K Petition dismissed.