IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Siya Ram Dass – Petitioner
Versus
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 9178 of 2021
Decided On : 24-05-2022
Electricity Act, 2003 - Electricity Connection - Tenant's Rights
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, sought a fresh electricity connection at the tenanted premises. Dispute arose regarding ownership of the property between the landlord and another party. The court directed the petitioner to apply for a new electricity connection and comply with all formalities, without requiring a no-objection certificate from the owner.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner to apply for a new electricity connection in his own name, without requiring a no-objection certificate from the owner. The court also imposed certain conditions and obligations on the petitioner regarding the electricity connection and payment of charges.
Issues: Dispute over ownership of the property, petitioner's right to seek a new electricity connection as a tenant, and the obligations imposed on the petitioner by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the petitioner's right to seek a new electricity connection as a tenant and imposed conditions to ensure compliance with formalities and payment obligations.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to apply for a new electricity connection in his own name, without requiring a no-objection certificate from the owner, and imposed conditions and obligations regarding the electricity connection and payment of charges.
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
2. To pass direction to charge actual consumption bill of electricity of suit property and not provisional or ad-hoc.
3. To pass cost of the Writ Petition.”
2. On 27.08.2021, this Court while issuing notice noted the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the petitioner is a tenant at premises bearing No. 781, Rishi Nagar, Rani Bagh, Delhi-110034 by virtue of Rent Deed dated 14.11.2019. It is claimed that respondent No. 3/Mr. Gulshan Kumar (as per amended memo of parties) is the landlord/owner.
3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that pursuant to his application seeking electricity connection, a site inspection was carried out during which respondent No. 4/Mr. Ravinder Singh (as per amended memo of parties) has raised a dispute and claimed himself to be the owner of the premises.
In the said order, it was also noted that both Gulshan Kumar & Ravinder Singh have filed civil suit for possession against each other and have claimed themselves to be the owner of the property.
4. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court directed to implead both Gulshan Kumar & Ravinder Singh as respondents, who have been impleaded and represented through their respective counsels.
5. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 & 4 have confirmed the aforesaid position and submit that civil suits are still pending between the parties.
6. On a specific query, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, on instructions, admits that presently the petitioner is occupying a portion of the said property. The portion presently occupied by the petitioner is highlighted in the Site Verification Report, a copy of which has been placed on record as (Annexure R-1) alongwith the short affidavit/Status Report filed on behalf of respondent No. 1/TPDDL. As per the said Site Verification Report, the petitioner is stated to be occupying the shaded portion in the map depicted therein under the heading ‘Applied Premises’.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that the shop shown in the said Site Verification Report is occupied by respondent No. 4.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, on instructions, submits that being the landlord/owner, respondent No. 3 has no objection to petitioner seeking electricity connection.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 while referring to the premises layout plan depicted in the said Site Verification Report has shown an apprehension inasmuch as there exists an inter se connection between the ‘Applied Premises’ and ‘Adjacent premises’, which may lead to safety hazards.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner undertakes to use the electricity connection only for the shaded portion i.e., ‘Applied Premises’ and not for the ‘Adjacent premises’. The undertaking given on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record and he is held bound by the same. He also submits that the petitioner will submit a fresh application seeking installation of new electricity connection and also complete all other formalities, as required by respondent No. 1.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that as and when the fresh application is received, the same would be processed expeditiously and considered, subject to the petitioner completing all the formalities.
12. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of in the following terms:
The tenant has the right to seek a new electricity connection without requiring a no-objection certificate from the owner, subject to compliance with formalities and payment obligations.
Petitioner is entitled to apply for a new electricity connection without requiring landlord's NOC, provided all dues are cleared and formalities complied with.
The court permits granting of an electricity connection despite pending litigation, emphasizing that no rights or possessory claims are recognized by this order.
Electricity is a basic amenity that cannot be denied to a tenant solely based on the landlord's refusal to issue a No Objection Certificate.
The court's decision was based on the principle of granting a fresh electricity connection in favor of the petitioner for the ground floor, without prejudice to the pending dispute with the estranged....
The court ruled that the installation of an electricity connection is contingent upon the applicant's compliance with codal requirements and does not confer ownership rights.
Electricity is a basic amenity and cannot be declined to a tenant based on the landlord's refusal to issue a No Objection Certificate.
The court balanced the petitioner's claim with the requirement of compliance with formalities and conditions for granting the electricity connection, without recognizing ownership or possessory right....
A petition under Article 226 can direct the installation of utilities, subject to formal requirements and does not confer ownership rights.
Electricity, as an essential service, cannot be denied to tenants based on landlord disputes or NOC requirements.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.