Electricity as an essential service cannot be denied. Occupants are entitled to connections, reflecting the Supreme Court's emphasis on basic amenities under the Electricity Act.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 30179/2022 (Exemption)

1.1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

1.2. The application stands disposed of.

FAO 186/2022, CM APPL. 30180/2022 (Interim Relief) and CM APPL. 30181/2022 (Addl. Doc.)

2.1. By way of the present appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC, the appellant has assailed the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned Vacation Judge/ADJ-01, Patiala House Courts, Delhi in Summer Vacation Case No. 01/2022, whereby the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed. The appellant also seeks direction to respondent No.1 to consider and install an electricity meter and connection at the suit property in his favor, upon an application being made by him in this regard.

2.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has preferred the aforesaid suit seeking relief of mandatory and permanent injunction as well as directions to respondent No. 1 to install a new electricity connection at property bearing No. B-1/1678, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070 (hereinafter, referred to as the `subject premises') in his name. In the suit, the appellant/plaintiff has claimed himself to be in occupation of the subject premises since August, 2021, pursuant to an oral family settlement agreement.

He has contended that a family settlement was arrived at between the parties It is claimed that the suit property was purchased through HUF funds and as per family settlement, the same has fallen to the share of the appellant.

Learned counsel submits that the electricity supply in the subject premises provided through CA No. 151294699, which was in the name of respondent No. 2, has now been disconnected at her request. He further submits that respondent No. 2 is none other than the wife of appellant's brother.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to submit that respondent No. 1/BSES is dutybound to provide electricity connection to any `occupant' of the premises in question. Reference has also been made to the decision dated 13.05.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Dilip (Dead) through Lrs. v. Satish & Others, Criminal Appeal No. 810/2022. In addition, reliance has been placed on various receipts of the electricity bills paid by the appellant, as well as certain photographs, copies of which have been placed on record.

4. Issue notice.

5. Mr. Gaurav Sarin, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, accepts notice. He has disputed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submitted that respondent No.2 is the owner of the subject premises by virtue of Sale Deed dated 17.01.2012. It is further submitted that all the electricity bills were paid by her. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision dated 18.09.2017 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajesh Sharma v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Ors., W.P.(C) 5617/2015 to urge that the appellant being an unauthorized occupant, the electricity supply was rightly disconnected.

Learned counsel, however, has not denied that the appellant is in the occupation of the subject premises, albeit illegally. It is also undisputed that an electricity connection existed in the subject premises.

6. At this stage, this Court deems it apposite to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Dilip (Dead) (Supra), wherein it has been held as under:

"It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant o