Syed Mahhoob Ahmad Shah petitioner claims that he was owner of House No, 557/5-Ward No, 8- Muslim Multan and he got possession of the said property on 26.3.2003 pursuant to judgment passed on 24.1.2003 by the High Court and report of Warrant Dakhal dated 26.3.2003 was issued in his favour. It is stated in this petition that Abdul Salam predecessor of the occupant was encroacher who in collusion with the respondents got installed electricity connection in his name in the said premises without the documents of ownership or written consent of the actual owner and one year before getting the possession of the said premises the petitioner intimated the Respondent No, 4 through notice dated 19.4.2002 that if any amounts were outstanding against the electricity meter connection in he name of Abdul Salam should be recovered from the occupant because they were encroacher over the said premises. This notice was received by respondents on 19.4.2002 but the petitioner was never informed about the fate of the same. After obtaining the possession of the said premises the petitioner applied for new electricity connection vide application dated 17.6.2003 and he has been refused the same on the ground that the predecessor pessessee of the said property was defaulter as an amount of Rs, 8,538/- is due against him and unless the said amount is clear new connection cannot be given to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Abdus Salam could not be given electricity connection by the respondents without placing on record the proof of ownership or no objection certificate from the owner but the respondents in collusion with Abdus Shalam had installed the meter on the said premises though Abdus Salam was not the legal occupant. Further contends that the petitioner was indulged in litigation with Abdus Salam in a Civil Court and only after final decision was passed by the High Court in RSA No, 7 of 2002 Warrant Dakhal was issued and he obtained possession but the respondents have refused to install electric connection in spite of that the petitioner was never defaulter.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that unless the amount of Rs, 8,538/- is paid, the respondents cannot provide electricity metere to the petitioner as the petitioner is successor of said Abdus Salam in the property and according to Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 read with the explanation any person who inherits the property or the property is sold to him by way of sale, gift, exchange, lease or any other mode to the new incumbent, he is bound to pay the defaulted amount.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the contents of this petition and also the documents attached therewith. According to certified copy of order dated 24.1.2003 passed in RSA No, 7 of 2002 which was filed by Muhammad Aqil Khan and other legal heirs of Abdus Salam Khan against the petitioner, petitioner-had filed a suit for possession on the disputed house which was contested by said Abdus Salam and after framing of the relevant issues the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner and against Abdus Salam by the learned Civil Judge Multan on 23.11.2000. An appeal was filed against the said order before the learned Additional District Judge, Multan who also dismissed the same on 14.2.2002. Being aggrieved by both the decrees and judgments RSA No, 7 of 2002 was filed by sons of Abdus Salam which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 24.1.2003 by declaring that Abdus Salam was illegal occupant on the said premises and after issuance of Warrant Dakahl the possession was delivered to the petitioner. If the respondents had given the electricity connection to any illegal occupant without obtaining necessary documents or considering whether Abdus Salain was owner of the said property or had he obtained any NOC from the original owner, the respondents cannot refuse the new connection to the petitioner on the ground of arrears of electricity charges against the illegal occupant of the premises. As the petitioner in any manner is not the successor of said Abdus Salam who as per decisions of the Courts and record was illegal occupant of the said premises, the respondents cannot take advantage of the 'Explanation' provided u/S 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910. Hence, refusal to grant electricity connection to the petitioner is illegal and unlawful being not supported by law. The petitioner cannot be burdened due to the misdeeds of the respondents themselves. Hence, this petition is accepted and respondents are directed to install electricity connection at the premises of the petitioner without considering the fault of the earlier occupant(s) who was/were in illegal occupation of the same, from whom the arrears of electricity charges, however can be recovered in accordance with law.