Electricity, as an essential service, cannot be denied to tenants based on landlord disputes or NOC requirements.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petition for grant of electricity connection - Petitioners, as co-tenants, sought direction for electricity connection without NOC from landlord - It was held that denying connection based on landlord’s refusal contravenes legal rights of a tenant. The petitioners must lay fresh wiring at their cost. (Paras 8, 9)

(B) Basic Amenities - The court reaffirmed that electricity is an essential service that cannot be denied to legal occupants due to disputes over property ownership. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed co-tenancy of a disputed property and requested a fresh electricity connection. The authority insisted on an NOC from the landlord and raised safety concerns due to prior incidents.

Findings of Court:
The petitioners were directed to apply for an electricity connection, which could not be denied based on the landlord's refusal to provide an NOC, provided they undertook wiring at their own cost.

Issues: The court addressed the legality of the requirement for an NOC for tenants and the implications of safety concerns on service provision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a tenant's right to essential services must not be compromised by ownership disputes or safety claims, reaffirming the precedent that tenants cannot be denied electricity against their lawful occupancy.

Result: Petition disposed of with specific directions for processing the electricity connection application.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek electricity connection ruling. (Para 1)
2. disputes over premises and permission conditions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. electricity is essential; occupancy matters. (Para 8)
4. directions for electricity connection granted. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. writ petition disposed, pending applications addressed. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)--By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who claim themselves to be co-tenants in respect of first floor and terrace of property bearing No. B-103, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the `subject premises'), seek directions to respondent No. 1/TPDDL to consider their application/request dated 13.10.2022 for installation of a fresh electricity connection in the name of petitioner No. 1 at the first floor of the subject premises without insisting for a `No Objection Certificate' from the lessor/landlord (respondent No. 2).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners application seeking grant of fresh electricity connection remained pending in terms of `Acknowledgment cum Notification Suspension Letter' dated 15.10.2022 issued by respondent No. 1. Vide the said communication, the petitioners have been asked to provide valid ownership proof as well as `No Objection Certificate', in case, the owner is some other person.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that a Status Report has been filed, however the same is not on record. He has handed over a copy of the Status Report in Court, which is taken on record. Relevant excerpt from the Status Report reads as under:

"3. During the joint site visit on 04.11.2022, it was found that there are total 4 floors including basement, Ground Floor, Mezzanine, and 1st Floor. It is found that the Mezzanine floor and half portion of 1st Floor (One Room) is used for commercial activity i.e., packaging delivery, storage & moulding of the Art & handicraft statues or decorative items.

4. At the time of inspection, one disconnected electricity connection being CA No.60002764912 (in name of Kandhari Raid Corp) was found existing, which was disconnected due to non-payment of dues. There was no electricity available at the premises. There exists dispute between Owner (Mr. Avtar Singh) and Tenant (Akash) and Owner is not interested to allow TPDDL to provide new electricity connection to the Applicant.

5. As per site visit, building structure was found to be not safe as there had been a fire accident before due to which internal wiring and building seems to be not safe. A copy of joint site report dated 04.11.2022 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A."

4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has clarified that insofar as safety of the subject premises is concerned, the joint site report is only qua the fire-safety and not the structural safety.

5. Mr. Sunil Dalal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that civil disputes are pending between the parties wherein similar prayers have been sought. It is submitted that the subject premises is structurally unsafe and for which purpose, reference is also made to the Report of the fire accident which statedly took place on 04.05.2019 as well as on the Report of Structural Engineer, a copy of which has also been placed on record.

6. Mr. Kush Sharma, learned counsel while appearing for DPCC submits that the petitioners have been using the subject premises for the non-permitted use and without obtaining any consent to operate from the answering respondent.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the Inspection Report dated 23.09.2022 which was prepared after the fire incident wherein, it has been stated that `the building structure is fit for any commercial activity'. He, on instructions, submits that to allay any fears, the petitioners undertake to lay fresh internal electric wiring in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document