Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Sultan Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Subhash & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL REVISION NO. 5146 of 2018
Decided On : 09-02-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of ownership dispute and key events (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claim and history of electricity connection (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments presented by both parties (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. court's analysis of ownership and evidence (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. electricity as a basic amenity; order effect (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. decision to set aside previous orders (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present revision petition has been filed by the Defendant-Petitioner seeking setting aside of order dated 3.7.2018/Annexure P-4 and order dated 02.08.2018/Annexure P-6, whereby on an application filed by the respondent No.1- plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim injunction, direction has been issued to respondent no.2 herein, to remove the electricity meter from the demised premises.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant. The respondent No. 1 and the petitioner are real brothers. Respondent No. 1 claimed ownership over the suit property on the basis of sale deed dated 03.07.1984. Brief sequence of events is as follows:
| 03.07.1984 | Nar Singh father of petitioner and respondent No.1, purchased the suit property in the name of respondent No.1, minor, by way of sale deed dated 3.7.1984. |
| 24.03.2017 | Nar Singh father of petitioner and respondent No.1 expired. |
| 2003 | It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that upon the death of Nar Singh, the house in question fell into the share of petitioner, and the electricity connection was taken by the petitioner. Petitioner states that as the electricity connection was disconnected due to non-payment of bill, the petitioner took temporary connection from the neighbour. But the electricity department imposed a case of theft of energy against the petitioner on the ground that electricity connection through the neighbouring house is not permissible. Meanwhile, respondent No.1 filed the suit for ejectment against the petitioner wherein arrears of rent were prayed for. The petitioner took the plea that the house in question fell into his share as per family settlement. |
| 07.08.2015 | Respondent No.1 also instituted a rent petition for ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises. |
| 19.12.2017 | The petitioner deposited the computing fees as well as the outstanding electricity charges. |
| 23.03.2018 | Meanwhile, when the petitioner moved the application for restoration of the electricity supply, respondent No.1 instituted the present suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants / respondents herein, from installing the electricity connection in the house/ demised premises as described in paras 2 and 3 of the plaint. |
| 19.07.2018/ 02.08.2018 | Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 application moved by the respondent No.1 allowed and appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. |
| 10.08.2018 | This Court, while issuing Notice of Motion, stayed the operation of the order for removal of the meter. The suit for ejectment instituted by the respondent No.1 stand dismissed. The electricity is fall under the basic amenities while the possession of the house in question with the petitioner is not in dispute. |
3. As noticed above, the prayer in the present suit was to restrain the petitioner-defendant from installing the electricity connection in the house owned by the plaintiff as fully detailed in Para 2 and 3 of the plaint. The present petitioner appeared and filed written statement, inter alia, pleading therein that as per the family partition, the house had come in the share of the petitioner and he had been residing in the said house since the year 1999 without paying any kind of rent to the respondent-plaintiff.
4. It was further submitted by the petitioner that the electricity connecti
The right to an electricity connection cannot be asserted without proof of ownership and clearance of dues, and the tenant's rights do not override the landlord's obligations.
Settled possession grants rights to basic utilities, regardless of property ownership disputes.
The main legal point established is that electricity is a basic necessity and integral to the right to life, and as long as a person is in possession of a property, they cannot be deprived of electri....
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.
A party must demonstrate lawful ownership or possession to obtain electricity connections; pending civil disputes cannot be overlooked by administrative authorities in granting such connections.
Electricity Connection - Duty of licensee to supply on request - It is duty of distribution licensee to provide connection to every eligible applicant by taking necessary steps for which respondents ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
