### Succession to Commercial Tenancy Requires Proof of Jointly Carrying on Business with Deceased Tenant

The petitioner’s father was a tenant of a shop since 1981, running a typewriting institute. Following an electricity theft case in 2005, the supply was disconnected

The father died in 2009. In 2011, the petitioner settled the theft dues with PGVCL but did not seek reconnection, stating it was not required as the shop was used for storage

In 2021, the petitioner applied for a new connection to resume business. The landlord (Respondent No. 3) objected, and the PGVCL refused the connection without a No Objection Certificate (NOC)

The petitioner then applied to the Assistant Collector under Section 23A of the Rent Act to obtain the connection despite the landlord's refusal

The Assistant Collector rejected the application on 11.11.2021, ruling the petitioner failed to prove he was a "tenant" under the Act

1. Whether the petitioner established his status as a "tenant" under the statutory definition to maintain an application for electricity connection under Section 23A of the Rent Act.

2. Whether the Assistant Collector’s order de-registering the application was legally sustainable.

Section 5(11)(c)(ii) of the Bombay (Gujarat) Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which defines "tenant" in relation to business premises as any member of the deceased tenant's family who was carrying on business with the tenant at the time of death and continues to do so thereafter

Section 23A of the same Act, which empowers the Collector to permit a tenant to obtain an electricity connection at their own cost if the landlord refuses consent

The Court observed that under Section 5(11)(c)(ii), the petitioner had a statutory burden to prove he was carrying on business with his father at the time of the latter's death in 2009 and continued it thereafter

The Court found no evidence of ongoing business; notably, the electricity had been disconnected since 2005 (prior to the father's death) and remained so for over a decade

The petitioner admittedly used the premises only for "storage" or as a "godown" during the intervening years and had previously informed the electricity company that a connection was not required

the petitioner failed to produce rent receipts or evidence of a continuous tenancy relationship recognized by the landlord

Consequently, because the petitioner did not meet the specialized definition of a "tenant" for business premises, he lacked the locus standi to invoke the Collector’s powers under Section 23A

The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Assistant Collector's order dated 11.11.2021. Rule was discharged with no order as to costs