Settled occupants can get electricity without landlord’s NOC until evicted through due process, Calcutta High Court rules

The petitioner had resided in the premises for approximately 24–25 years, initially as a caretaker, and claimed settled occupation of its first floor.

She was not its owner.

After a fire damaged the meter through which she had received electricity, she applied for a new connection.

WBSEDCL declined to proceed unless she produced a tenancy agreement or the landlord’s no-objection certificate, noting that the premises did not belong to her.

The owner did not dispute her long-term occupation but alleged that she had overloaded the meter by using heavy cooking equipment for a cloud kitchen; the petitioner denied misuse.

The owner had not initiated legal proceedings to evict her.

1. Whether a person in prolonged, settled occupation of premises is eligible for a new electricity connection under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, despite not being the owner.

2. Whether WBSEDCL may require such an occupier to produce a tenancy agreement or the landlord’s no-objection certificate before granting the connection.

Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 requires a distribution licensee to provide electricity to an applicant who satisfies the applicable conditions of supply.

Rule 2(1)(b) of the West Bengal Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 defines an “occupier” as a person in lawful occupation of the building or land.

In Abhimanyu Mazumdar v. The Superintending Engineer, 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 362, the Larger Bench held that a person in settled possession—including a trespasser not evicted through due process—is entitled to seek electricity, and that the licensee need not require prior adjudication of the occupier’s status; it identified prolonged physical possession, knowledge or acquiescence of the owner, and completed dispossession as relevant indicia of settled possession.

The judgment also relied on Rame Gowda (D) by L.Rs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs., AIR 2004 SC 4609, for the principle that settled possession may be protected against forcible dispossession, including by the true owner.

The Court found that the petitioner’s 24–25 years of occupation was undisputed and known to the present owner, and that no eviction proceedings had been brought against her.

Applying Abhimanyu Mazumdar, the Court held that her prolonged occupation made her eligible to seek a connection under Section 43; the licensee could not make a landlord’s consent or tenancy document a precondition.

The allegation of excess electricity use did not defeat her eligibility, but justified monitoring and action by the licensee if misuse were established.

It directed WBSEDCL to provide the connection within two weeks and permitted the authority to conduct surprise inspections and take lawful action if excess load or misuse were found.

The writ petition was allowed and disposed of.