Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The present writ petition is a sequel to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2010 Delhi 14 and as per which, if a tenant leaves arrears of electricity charges, the landlord can be denied electricity in the premises if does not clear the said arrears.

2. The Petitioner is the owner of the first floor of property bearing No. E-5, South Extension Part-II (Market), New Delhi. The said property has been let out to the Respondent No. 2 M/s Saraf Projects Pvt. Ltd. The Respondent No. 2 tenant has obtained an electricity connection in the said tenanted premises in its own name from the Respondent No. 1. Disputes and differences arose between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 resulting in the filing of CS(OS) No. 842/2009 by the Petitioner in this Court for eviction of the Respondent No. 2. In the said suit, a settlement was arrived at between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 and under which settlement, the Respondent No. 2 has inter alia agreed to vacate the premises on or before 7th January, 2013.

3. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition averring that to the knowledge of the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 has outstanding arrears of over Rs. 55,00,000/- to the Respondent No. 1 towards electricity charges and expressing apprehension that unless the Respondent No. 1 recovers the said amount from the Respondent No. 2 immediately or disconnects electricity supply to the Respondent No. 2 in the tenanted premises immediately, so as to compel the Respondent No. 2 to make payment, the Petitioner may be saddled with the said liability upon the Respondent No. 2 vacating the premises.

4. The Petitioner thus seeks a direction to the Respondent No. 1 to take appropriate steps to recover up to date dues with respect to the premises from the Respondent No. 2 only, to ensure that the Petitioner upon being put back into possession of the premises is not saddled with liability for dues of electricity consumed by the Respondent No. 2.

5. Considering the nature of the controversy, need was not felt to call for the counter affidavit or to issue notice to the Respondent No. 2 tenant and the counsel for the Petitioner and the counsel for the Respondent No. 1 have been heard finally on the petition.

6. The counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has contended that the Petitioner has concealed from this Court that there is a dispute pending between the Respondent No. 2 tenant and the Respondent No. 1 with respect to the electricity dues aforesaid. It is stated that the Respondent No. 2 tenant had filed a complaint against the Respondent No. 1 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and which was decided in favour of the Respondent No. 2 tenant on 16th December, 2008; the Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which was decided in favour of the Respondent No. 1 on 7th August, 2009; the Respondent No. 2 tenant has now preferred a Special Leave Petition No. 25343/2009 which is pending consideration before the Supreme Court. It is contended that the relief sought in this writ petition of directing the Respondent No. 1 to recover the dues of over Rs. 55,00,000/- from the Respondent No. 2 tenant is contrary to the aforesaid dispute which is pending. The counsel for the Respondent No. 1 however on enquiry informs that there is no stay by the Supreme Court of any action by the Respondent No. 1 to recover the dues from the Respondent No. 2 tenant.

7. It is further the contention of the counsel for the Respondent No. 1 that the relief sought by the Petitioner is contrary to Regulation 15 of the Delhi Electricity Supply Code & Performance Standards Regulations, 2007 where under the Respondent No. 1 is entitled to refuse electricity supply to the premises aforesaid after the Respondent No. 2 tenant has vacated the premises if any arrears of electricity dues remain. The counsel for the Respondent No