Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 5955
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
DAYA NAND SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. AND 6 OTHERS – Respondent
SPLAD 395 2022
Key Points: - The contempt court direction to grant electricity connection was examined in light of occupancy disputes and pending litigation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court held that a person whose possession is not settled or deemed illegal cannot independently claim electricity connection separate from ongoing proceedings (!) (!) . - The landlord is not in error in refusing consent for a separate electricity connection in the name of the contested occupant (!) (!) . - The appropriate remedy for the occupant is to seek relief in the civil/SCC court handling ownership/possession matters, not via contempt directions (!) (!) (!) . - The order directing electricity department to grant connection within 72 hours was set aside, and the occupant was relegated to approach the civil court for redress (!) (!) . - The writ petition was disposed of with instructions that rights may be pursued in the pending civil proceedings, without affecting the current appeal or writ petition (!) (!) . - The appellant’s status as landlord/owner of the premises is established, with rent/possession details discussed (e.g., rent agreement and notices) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - There is a pending SCC suit and civil appeal arising from injunction proceedings related to occupancy and possession (!) (!) (!) . - The court emphasizes that eviction/relief cannot be ordered via contempt in absence of settled possession/ownership determination (!) (!) (!) . - The court directs the respondent no.7 to pursue relief in the competent civil forum; the writ/petition shall not obstruct that course (!) (!) .
How to approach cancellation of contempt court directions in electricity connection cases when ownership/possession disputes are unsettled?
What is the proper forum for redressal of grievances regarding electricity connection where tenant/occupant claims conflict with landlord?
What are the rights and remedies of the respondent no.7 regarding electricity connection when there is ongoing Civil/SCC litigation and disputed occupancy?
Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 395 of 2022
Appellant :- Daya Nand Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Krishna Mishra,Ajay Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava,Pankaj
Kumar Tyagi,Ramendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
In view of the order dated 03.09.2022 passed by this Court, office
is directed to remove the defect and allot regular number to the
appeal.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 29.08.2022 passed by the contempt court directing the
electricity department and police officials of Police Station Sector-
24, NOIDA Gautambudh Nagar to immediately provide electricity
connection to the contempt applicant within a period of 72 hours
from the date of the order. The contempt applicant claims to be the
tenant of the premises in question and with the said claim, he filed
Writ C no.17882 of 2022 (Amit Kumar vs State of U.P and others)
challenging the communication dated 30.05.2022 issued by the
Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division-VII,
33/11 KV sub station, Sector 62 C, NOIDA, whereby he was asked
to provide the consent of the landlord for granting electricity
connection.
On submission of the learned counsel that the landlord of the
premises has refused to give consent and objected for grant of
electricity connection in the name of the petitioner, liberty was
granted to the petitioner to comply with the condition of Clause
4.4 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 in furnishing the
indemnity bond and fulfil all other necessary formalities subject to
which the concerned authority was required to pass appropriate
order in the matter of granting electricity connection in the name
of the petitioner, ignoring the connection in the name of the
landlord.
The contention of the appellant who is the landlord, is that the
direction issued by this Court has wrongly been interpreted by the
contempt court by issuing positive direction for grant of electricity
connection without determining the claim of the contempt
applicant for such relief.
There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant herein is
owner/landlord of the premise in question. It is demonstrated
before us that a rent agreement dated 14.07.2021 had been
executed for the basement of the premise in question in favour of
one M/s Fitness 22 Gym through its proprietor Mr. Abhijeet
Tanwar s/o Sh. Surendra Singh R/o R-33, Sector-12, NOIDA-
201301 District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. The said agreement was
for a period of 11 months w.e.f 16.06.2021 which expired on
15.05.2022.
It is demonstrated before us that a notice dated 20.04.2022 had
been given by the appellant to M/s Fitness 22 Gym through its
proprietor Abhijeet Tanwar, respondent no.7 herein namely Amit
Kumar s/o Narendra Kumar to vacate the premise in question
namely the basement in accordance with the terms and condition
of the rent agreement or else the damages was required to be paid.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
person in whose occupation, the premise in question was under the
rent agreement, had delivered physical possession of the same to
the landlord/appellant herein on 16.06.2022. However, the
respondent no.7 has unauthorisedly occupied the premises-in-
question. He has illegally occupied the same and with a view to
continue in unauthorised occupation, application was moved
before the electricity department for grant of electricity connection
in his name.
It further transpired that the respondent no.7 herein had filed an
original suit no.112 of 2022 seeking permanent prohibitory
injunction against the appellant herein which has been dismissed
under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.
An SCC suit no.612 of 2022 has been filed by the appellant herein
before the Court, wherein respondent no.7 and M/s Fitness 22
Gym through its
