' The petitioner filed a civil suit challenging the validity of recovery of amount in dispute on account of electricity energy bills which according to WAPDA were not paid. The plea in the suit was that the premises were leased out, therefore, it was the lessee who was responsible to pay the electricity bills and not the present petitioner who though was the owner of the factory but according to him there was a stipulation with the lessee that he shall pay the electricity charges. Alongwith the suit an application for temporary injunction was moved restraining the WAPDA Authority from recovering the amount as arrears of land revenue which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 8-6-1985. The WAPDA filed an appeal which was accepted vide order dated 14-3-1987 of the learned lower appellate Court, the order of the trial Court was set aside dismissing the application for temporary injunction.
2. This revision petition was admitted on the ground that before the amount in dispute could be recovered as arrears of land revenue it was necessary for the authorities to determine the excess amount to be recovered as also the liability of the petitioner to pay before the machinery for recovery was set in motion.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents rightly pointed out that in the plaint the only plea taken was that the authorities should have determined the liability between the petitioner and his lessee as to who out of the two were to pay the amount and it was not as such pleaded that the amount itself was not recoverable. Learned counsel for the WAPDA has also pointed out that the premises of factory admittedly are owned by the petitioner and if they have been leased out, the WAPDA Authorities are entitled to recover the bills of electricity of charges from the owner of the premises who is the consumer according to WAPDA record and WAPDA Authority is not bound by any arrangement or agreement between the petitioner and the lessee regarding payment of electricity charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand contended that previous to this amount the WAPDA Authorities have been receiving the electricity charges from the lessee. I am afraid this contention has no basis in law. Lessee might have been paying and the WAPDA might have been receiving but it does not mean that the petitioner is absolved from his liability as consumer. The WAPDA Authorities were well within their right to follow the consumer for payment of electricity charges and if there is any agreement between the petitioner and the lessee, the petitioner in turn could recover the same from him but cannot ask the WAPDA to follow the lessee. The learned lower Appellate Court has correctly passed the orders. No material irregularity amounting to illegality has been committed in passing the impugned order by the lower appellate Court. The revision petition has no merits. It is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.