Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3635
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
A.K. CHAWLA, J.
Rajesh Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 5617 of 2015
Decided On : 18-09-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Naman Saraswant, proxy counsel
Mere occupation as a tenant in a disputed property does not automatically entitle an individual to demand an independent electricity connection under Section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003.
Headnote:
Electricity Connection - Property Occupation - Electricity Act 2003, Section 42, Section 43
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ to direct the respondent to install an electricity connection in a property he claimed to be occupying as a tenant. Disputes arose regarding the ownership and tenancy of the property after the demise of the previous occupant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's occupation and ownership of the property were in dispute, and there were seriously disputed questions of facts. The court refrained from exercising its jurisdiction to issue the writ, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach a court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of his rights.
Issues: Dispute over property ownership and tenancy, entitlement to independent electricity connection under Section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere claim of being a tenant in a disputed property does not automatically entitle the petitioner to demand an independent electricity connection. It suggested seeking redressal through a Rent Controller for grievances related to the withholding of electricity supply.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the petitioner was advised to approach a court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of his rights and seek redressal through a Rent Controller for any grievances.
A.K. CHAWLA, J.
Instant petition has come to be filed seeking directions to the respondent no.1-BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. to install an electricity connection in a portion on the ground floor of property being no. 198/3A, Sri Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. What is the extent of the portion of the property in occupation of the petitioner, prayer (i) avers, as follows :
“issue direction/writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent no.1 to install the electricity connection in the premises under occupation of the petitioner."
2. Petitioner claims to be in occupation as a tenant having been so inducted by one Ms. Santo Devi, who expired intestate and issueless, on 21.12.2008.
3. It is the own case of the petitioner that after the demise of Ms. Santo Devi, her nephew i.e. respondent no.2, entered into the premises and that, the respondent no.3, asserts to be another nephew and claims ownership to the property.
4. It emerges from the record that in relation to a purported Will dated 6.10.2008 allegedly executed by Ms. Santo Devi (since deceased), a probate case is pending and the respondent no.2 has also filed a suit for possession, recovery and mesne profit against Ms. Sunita Sharma, who is the wife of the instant petitioner. It appears that Ms. Sunita Sharma, who is the wife of the petitioner, was looking after and living with Ms. Santo Devi (Bua Ji), who was aged and ailing. After the death of Ms. Santo Devi, diverse litigations have ensued amongst the parties i.e. the petitioner, his wife Ms. Sunita Sharma, respondent nos.2 and 3, all asserting their own diverse rights in the property left behind by Ms. Santo Devi. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 has stated, as follows :
“.................................................................................................................................................................................................
4. without prejudice to the above, it is humbly submitted that the said purported application does not constitute an application seeking fresh electricity connection under Section 43 of the Electricity Act. Regard may be have to the explanation to Section 43(1) which provides that application for the purpose of this sub section means application complete in all respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing payment of necessary charges. The procedure and formalities for grant of new connection is dealt with and provided under Delhi Supply Code & Performance Standards Regulations 2007. As per the said regulations, in case a connection is applied for in tenanted premises, the application should be accompanied amongst others, with the copy of the lease deed and No Objection Certificate from the landlord.
5. That contrary to the said stipulation, a perusal of the application of the petitioner would show that it does not even mention name of the landlord or details of the lease deed, much less any NOC from the owner of the premises. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the application dated 5.8.2014 is not and cannot be treated as an application seeking electricity connection as contemplated under provision of Section 43 of the Electricity Act 2003. Accordingly in absence of a complete and proper application, Section 43 of the Electricity Act cannot be invoked by way of Writ petition.
6. That besides there being no proof of tenancy in favour of the petitioner, the ownership of the premises in which connection is sought for, is also not established. As per the averments made in para 2 and 3 of the Petition itself, two separate proceedings (Civil suit no.401/09, and Probate case between Respondent no.2 and Respondent no.3) are going on before the Trial Court.
.......................................................................................................”
Thus, according to the respondent no.1, the tenancy as also ownership are much in dispute and its regulation
