( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeks quashing of the orders dated 8-4. 2000 and 12. 4. 2000 issued by the respondent directing disconnection of the electricity to the petitioner s Premises No. 175, Functional Industrial estate, Patparganj, Delhi. The petitioner also seeks directions to the respondent to restore the electricity which was ordered to be disconnected on the ground that the Commissioner of Industries, Government of NCT of delhi, the lessor, vide orders dated 4. 2. 1999 had terminated the lease of the plot in favour of the petitioner and had directed the petitioner to hand over the possession of the plot in question to it on the ground that there was a change in the trade and the plot had been sold/sublet.

( 2 ) THE petitioner alleged that the aforesaid industrial plot was allotted to him in the year 1991 on lease hold basis subject to the condition that the petitioner lessee could not sell, transfer, assign, sublet or part with the possession of the plot or any part thereof except with the permission in writing of the lessor nor he could use the said plot for residence or for carrying on any trade or business other than that of manufacturing ready-made garments. The proviso however stipulated that the lessor could allow change of user on such terms and conditions, including payment of additional premium and additional rent, as the lessor may in his absolute discretion determine.

( 3 ) THE petitioner averred that the ground floor, first floor and barsati floor were completed in the year 1995 and thereafter the petitioner obtained a licence for running a factory of ready-made garments. The said licence was valid upto 31. 3. 2000. The respondent/dvb sanctioned 14 kw of electricity to the petitioner s premises for commercial use. The petitioner had been paying all the bills and there were no arrears. However on 11. 6. 1998 the Commissioner of Industries, NCT of delhi issued a notice to the petitioner alleging that the plot was under the occupation of one Shri v. K. Aggarwal and was being used as godown and thus the plot was sold/sublet. It was also alleged that there was a change in the trade also. The petitioner replied to the said notice denying that any part of the plot had been sold, sublet or parted with. Regarding change of trade, he pleaded that the trade of readymade garments could not be successfully run on account of lack of water and as such the petitioner was interested in commissioning of a project for assembling and repair of electrical goods on job work basis. The Commissioner of industries, however, vide order dated 4. 2. 1999 terminated the lease and directed the petitioner to hand over possession of plot to him. A copy of the cancellation order was endorsed to the DVB/respondent also with a direction to cut off the electricity supply,, the petitioner filed an appeal before Lt. Governor against the termination of his lease which was forwarded by him for consideration to the Commissioner of industries. The petitioner made one more representation dated 22. 4. 1999 to the Commissioner of Industries against the cancellation of lease but vide orders dated 24. 6. 1999 the Commissioner of Industries directed him to hand over the possession of the plot stating that the lt. Governor had rejected his appeal. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing a Civil Suit which was still pending.

( 4 ) ON 8. 4. 2000 the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner that the supply would be disconnected after the expiry of 48 hours. The petitioner made a representation dated 10. 4. 2000 stating therein that a civil Suit against the cancellation of lease deed was pending in the Civil Court. However, on 12. 4. 2000 the respondent disconnected the supply of electricity to the petitioner s premises. The petitioner assailed the action of" the respondent in regard to disconnection of electricity without any show cause notice pleading that it was arbitrary, illegal