Clause 4c of the Delhi Electricity Control Order, 1959, requires the production of both a completion certificate from the Municipal/local Authority and a document of title or proof of lawful occupancy in order to obtain an electric connection.

( 1 ) AN important question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the occupants of premises which have not been constructed according to any sanctioned plans and are, in a sense, unauthorised, are entitled to demand electricity connection from D. E. S. U.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that a building known as B-5, Rajindra Park, Pusa Road, New Delhi was a property situated on land measuring 1250 sq. yards. This property was owned by Om Prakash Gupta and Neelam Gupta and by sale deed dated 4th December, 1981 it was sold to M/s. Ashoka Builders and Contractors, a partnership firm, respondent No. 3 in this petition.

( 3 ) ON 6th May, 1982 application was filed with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for sanctioning of the building plans for erection/construction of residential building consisting of a basement for domestic storage, additions and alterations on ground floor, first floor and barsati. The Application for the sanction plans was made not by respondent No. 3 but by the erstwhile owners, namely, Neelam Gupta and O. P. Gupta. On 14th July, 1982 these plans were sanctioned on the basis of undertakings and statements furnished by 0. P. Gupta and Neelam Gupta.

( 4 ) AFTER the construction commenced, on 8th September, 1983, a notice to show cause was issued under the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act in which it was stated that on the inspection of the site it was found that O. P. Gupta and Neelam Gupta had violated conditions of sanction and the undertakings and statement which had been furnished by them in the following manner :

" (I) The covered area of basement as achieved at site is more than sanctioned as well as compoundable limits. (2) The covered area of Ground floor as achieved at site is more than sanctioned as well as compoundable limits. (3) The existing covered area at ground floor proposed for retention has been demolished thereby provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 have been violated. Had you proposed demolition of existing structures the plans would have not been sanctioned by MCD as such. "it was also mentioned in the said notice that it appeared that the builders had no intention of construction according to the sanctioned plans and they were guilty of misrepresentation and fradulent statements. They were accordingly asked to show cause as to why the sanction of the plan which had been given should not be revoked and the work which had commenced or had been erected should not be treated as being without any valid sanction. To this notice reply was sent purportedly under the signatures of O. P. Gupta and Neelam Gupta on 16th September, 1983. It was denied that there had been violations of the sanctioned plan. On 18th September, 1984 the Municipal Corporation of Delhi revoked the sanction of the plans which had been accorded earlier.

( 5 ) CURIOUSLY enough, or perhaps it is not curious as far as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is concerned where anything can happen, whereas on 18th September, 1984 the sanctioned plans had been revoked, on 6th December, 1984,0. P. Gupta and Neelam Gupta succeeded in obtaining a completion certificate. This completion certificate was in respect of the building on 1250 sq. yards which was supposed to contain the following accommodation :

"no. 1. Basement Floor. No. 2. Ground Floor, rooms 23 Nos. , Toilets 10 Nos. Kitchen 7 Nos. No. 3. Mezz. Floor, Rooms 12 Nos. , Toilets 6 Nos. , Stores 6 Nos. No. 4. First Floor, Rooms 24 Nos. , Toilets 16 Nos. , Kitchen 8 Nos. No. 5. Barasati Floor, Rooms 9 Nos. , Kitchen 3 Nos. Toilets 6 Nos.

( 6 ) THE case of the petitioners is that with effect from 1st January, 1985 they took on rent a two room flat on the first floor in the said building at the rate of Rs. 800. 00 per month from respondent No. 3. Admittedly at the time when the premises were taken on rent there was no electricity there. On 17th January, 1985 an application was made by the petitioner for electricity.