Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Rajinder Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Goldi Taneja - Respondent
FAO 486 of 2019
Decided On : 19-12-2022
Possession of property by an occupant guarantees access to essential services like electricity, independent of landlord's consent.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act - Section 5 - Code of Civil Procedure - Order XLIII Rule 1 - Electricity supply - Condonation of delay of 25 days in filing appeal allowed - Appellant, a senior citizen residing abroad, claimed restoration of electricity services at her property, after alleging misuse of General Power of Attorney by her relative - The Court held electricity to be an essential service and directed the restoration upon compliance with necessary requirements. (Paras 3, 11, 12)
(B) Essential services - Court reiterates that electricity cannot be denied to an occupant regardless of the landlord’s refusal to issue no objection certificate.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Trial Court's order and directing the respondent to process the application for electricity connection immediately.
Issues: The Court addressed whether the Trial Court erred in denying the restoration of electricity to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that possession of the property by the appellant warranted provision of essential services like electricity.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay in filing appeal (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claims regarding property and relationship of parties (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. possession issues and previous court orders (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. legal entitlement to electricity supply (Para 11) |
| 5. court's directive for electricity connection (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. disposal of pending applications (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.52174/2019 (Delay)
1. By way of present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal.
2. It is averred that the instant appeal is filed through her Special Power of Attorney, namely, Sh. Varinder Singh as the appellant is a senior citizen and based in the United States of America. It is also stated that notarized copy of Special Power of Attorney signed and attested by the appellant was received by courier in the last week of October, 2019 and the appeal was filed on 01.11.2019.
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 25 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
4. The application stands disposed of in above terms.
FAO 486/2019
5. By way of present appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Rules, the appellant/plaintiff has assailed the order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the learned ADJ/West/Delhi in CS No. 1150/2017, whereby her application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed. The appellant also seeks directions to respondent No. 3/BSES-RPL to install a new/restore electricity meter at property bearing No. WZ-3A/1 A, Mukherjee Park, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the `subject property').
6. Dr. R.S. Sasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the parties are related to each other inasmuch as the appellant is the mother of respondent No. 1 and mother-in-law of respondent No. 2.
7. The appellant has claimed that she is aged about 65 years, an NRI and a permanent resident of the United States of America. It is averred that the appellant had purchased the subject property vide Sale Deed dated 28.10.1991. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the year 2013-2014, the subject property was in occupation of some relatives and in order to get them evicted, a General Power of Attorney dated 09.12.2013 was executed in favour of respondent No. 1 by the appellant.
8. It was further claimed that respondent No. 1 thereafter misused the said General Power of Attorney and sold the subject property to her husband/respondent No. 2. Learned counsel contended that initially an electricity meter was installed in the name of the appellant at the subject property, however the same was stolen in her absence. He has drawn attention of the Court to the order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Trial Court in CS No. 612737/2016 wherein it has been noted `As of now, it is admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property'.
9. On a specific query, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 concedes that the subject property is in possession of the appellant, however denies the appellant's right to continue to reside in the same. Learned counsel contends that after executing the General Power of Attorney and having knowledge of the fact that respondent No. 1 had executed a Sale Deed in favour of respondent No. 2, the relief sought in the appeal cannot be granted.
10. On a careful analysis, it is borne out from the record that the appellant had initially filed a suit seeking relief of declaration and cancellation of General Power of Attorney dated 09.12.2013. Later, the suit was amended and amongst other reliefs, the appellant had also sought cancellation of Sale Deed dated 04.02.2014. Concededly, the subject property is in the possession of the appellant. Further, vide order dated 02.07.2016 passed by the Trial Court, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 wer
