ORAL ORDER

1. Order dated 22.01.2020 rendered by City Civil Court, Ahmedabad dismissing the application Exh. 16-17 in Civil Suit No. 897 of 2019, seeking restoration of the electricity supply to the watchroom occupied by the appellant as a Watchmen/ servant of the opponent is sought to be assailed in this appeal from order under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short 'CPC').

2. The application (supra) came to be rejected principally on finding that the appellant-original defendant had no right to seek electric supply from the opponent. It was held that grant of interim order would impose unnecessary financial burden upon the original plaintiff-opponent herein. After recording the said reasons, the court below however questioned the activities of the appellant in using the property in question for commercial purposes and held that such activities would create nuisance and obstruction in the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff and his family. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the court below ought not to have rendered such a final decision in the application seeking electricity supply on humanitarian grounds.

3. The question deserving consideration at this stage is the nature of relation between the appellant and the opponent and rights and obligation flowing therefrom. Attention of this court has been invited to an undertaking stated to have been executed by the appellant on 10.02.2009 conceding to his position being Gardener cum Chowkidar as also undertaking to vacate the watchroom upon termination of the employment. Thus prima facie the relation between the two does not appear to be that of landlord or tenant, that being so, in absence of a contractual obligation upon the opponent to supply electricity, the relief to the appellant was rightly declined. Under the guise of humanitarian consideration, non-existent obligation cannot be superimposed upon the party not willing to enter into such contract. In similar case or perhaps the case pitched on the better footing than the present one, the Delhi High Court in Vijay Gupta vs. Manoj Mehta – 2008 Lawsuit (del) 3084 commented upon the rights and obligation between the parties therein with the following observations:

“

There is no dispute about the fact that the tenancy is not covered under Delhi Rent Control Act and that the respondent is not a protected tenant enjoying protection provided under DRC Act. The respondent in this case is a contractual tenant and rights and obligations of the petitioner and respondent are governed by the Transfer of Properties Act. Even if we believe that the tenancy was not for a fixed period of 3 years and was month to month, the tenancy undisputedly was terminated by the petitioner by serving a legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act. On receipt of this notice terminating the tenancy, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to handover the possession of the premises to the petitioner/lessor. The respondent had no statutory or contractual rights to continue in the premises against the wishes of the petitioner. Section 108 of the Transfer of Properties Act lays down the rights and liabilities of a lessor and lessee. The liabilities of the lessor towards the lessee as specified under this Section are to be fulfilled by the lessor during the continuation of the lease between the parties and once the tease is terminated, the lessor is under no obligation to continue its liabilities. The liabilities of the lessee as defined under Section 108 (q), on termination of lease, is to put lessor into possession of the property. The language of Section 108 (q) of TP Act is very specific and it states that the lessee is bound to put the lessor into possession. Where a lessee continues into the premises despite determination of the lease by service of a notice or by an efflux of time, he cannot ask the lessor to fulfill his obligations of providing him necessary amenities into the premi