HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2428 of 2025

M/S Q.B. Lounge ......Petitioner

Versus

Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan and another ….Respondents

Present:

Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondent no.1.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

The petitioner is a tenant in the premises of the

respondent no.2. There is a dispute between the parties. The petitioner has filed a civil suit against the landlord restraining him from interfering into the peaceful possession of the petitioner, as also not to disconnect the electricity and water connection. Now the petitioner seeks directions that the respondent no.1 be directed to provide water connection to the petitioner, as also to decide the

representation of the petitioner dated 04.08. 2025.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a dispute with the landlord, who is the respondent no.2. Therefore, he had filed a Civil Suit bearing Original Suit No. 358 of 2023, MS QB Lounge and others Vs. M/S Axiom Estate Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and another in the Court of 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dehradun (“the Civil Suit”), in which on 04.08.2023, an interim order was passed and the parties were

directed to maintain status quo, which has been confirmed after the objections were entertained on 30.11.2023. But, it is submitted that the respondent no.2, at times, disconnect the water supply, therefore, the petitioner has sought fresh connection from the respondent no.1, but it has not been provided to him. Therefore, directions may be issued.

4. At this stage, it may be noted that order dated 04.08.2023, passed in the Civil Suit, which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner has sought the restraining order against the respondent no.2, with regard to the non-interference into the peaceful possession of his property as well as for not disconnecting the water and electricity connections.

5. If water connection is being disconnected by the respondent no.2, the petitioner has ample opportunity to approach the concerned civil court seeking compliance of the status quo order. The question is, why should in the writ petition, the issue may be considered, which is pending consideration in the Civil Suit?

6. What is being stated by the petitioner is that the petitioner has given an application on 04.08.2025, which is Annexure 9 to the respondent no.1 for seeking fresh water

7. On behalf of the respondent no.1 it is argued that there is a status quo order in the Civil Suit. Under such circumstances, how could the respondent no.1 intervene? He also submits that the property belongs to the respondent no.2.

8. As stated, the dispute between the parties is pending consideration in the Civil Suit. The interim order was sought against the respondent no.2 for restraining him to not to disconnect the electricity and water connection, it means there is water supply in the premises. Now if it is being discontinued by the respondent no.2, as stated, the petitioner may approach the concerned civil court in the civil suit. Status quo order has already been passed in the Civil Suit, how could then the petitioner change the status by taking additional connection? How could the respondent no.1 do that?

9. Therefore, the petitioner may only seek directions from the concerned Civil Court to get a fresh water connection and after obtaining that permission, he could apply to the respondent no.1 to water connection. If this process is followed, this Court has no doubt that the respondent no.1 will have no option, but to provide

10. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

18.08.2025 Jitendra