Full Judgment
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President:
1. The complaint O.P. 53/95 District Forum, Guntur was filed by P. Venugopalam, Proprietor, Vishnu Bhavan, Railpet, Guntur against (1) Executive Officer, Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Railpet, Guntur, and (2) Guntur Municipality represented by its Commissioner seeking a direction to the opposite parties to reconnect the water tap connection which was disconnected by the second opposite party on 25.1.1995 on the ground that the property tax has to be paid by the tenant i.e. complainant.
2. It is not in dispute that the complainant's father was a lessee of the premises in question from Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple which is the owner of the property and obtained water tap connection in his own name. Thereafter the complainant continued to be the tenant and it is also not in dispute that the complainant has been regularly paying the water tax due and payable in respect of water connection to the Municipality.
3. Alleging that the owner of the property i.e. Executive Officer did not pay the property tax inspite of the demands issued by the Municipality and that under the provisions of the Municipalities Act, the property tax can also be collected from the tenant, and that as the tenant failed to pay the property tax due and payable by the landlord, the Municipality i.e. opposite party No. 1 disconnected the tap connection to the tenant. The complaint is filed against both the parties for a direction to restore the water tap connection.
4. During the pendency of the C.D. by an interim order, the water tap connection was restored.
5. The District Forum passed an order on 18.9.1996 stating that the complainant is justified in paying the tax due to the Municipality from out of the rent payable to the temple and directed that till such time the tax on the premises occupied by the complainant is satisfied and then only the complainant need not pay the rent to the 1st opposite party.
6. Questioning the said order, the above appeal was preferred by the first opposite party i.e. Executive Officer, Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Railpet, Guntur.
7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the relationship between the complainant and the first opposite party is that of landlord and tenant and that the complainant has not hired the services of the opposite party for any consideration. If the Municipality illegally disconnected the tap connection, it is open to the complainant to proceed against the Municipality, but not against the opposite party No. 1 as it cannot be said that the complainant has hired the services of the first opposite party temple for any consideration. It is evident that the amount paid by the complainant is only towards the rent for occupation of the premises and the relationship cannot be said to be that of a consumer and provider of services. It is also not the case of the complainant that there is payment of any consideration for any service to be rendered by the first opposite party, except payment of rent for occupation of premises for which the first opposite party has no objection. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the complainant is not a consumer so far as the first opposite party temple is concerned. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum in so far as it is against the first opposite party i.e. appellant herein.
8. Since during the pendency of the C.D., water tap connection was restored which is not disputed by the complainant and the complainant has been paying regularly the water charges due and payable to the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 i.e. Municipality shall not disturb the water connection of the complainant solely on the ground that the property tax was not paid as the water connection is in the name of the tenant and not in the name of the owner of the property.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside in so far as it is against the first opposite party i.e. Executive Officer, Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Railpet, Guntur i.e. appellant herein. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.
Appeal allowed.