Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY MS. HALA QUAMAR
CS SCJ 244/25
SHASHI
VS
BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD
ORDER
31.01.2026
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC moved by the plaintiff.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is residing in the
property bearing No. 2190, first floor, Gaushala Area, Yamuna
Bazar, Delhi-110006 as a caretaker of a temple. The plaintiff has
alleged that the said property is a temple and that the plaintiff
along with other families is residing therein. It is stated that the
father-in-law of the plaintiff was inducted as a caretaker by the
owner of the property, namely Sh. Prem Narayan. It is further
submitted that neither the plaintiff nor the other residents are the
owners of the premises. It is the case of the plaintiff that all the
residents, including the plaintiff and the defendants, have been
using electricity through a common electricity meter and are
receiving electricity supply in their respective rooms from the
said common meter. It is alleged that in the month of December,
2016, Defendant no:2 namely Suresh Yadav and defendant
No.3 Santoshi disconnected the electricity supply of the
plaintiff’s room from the common meter.It is further stated that
the husband of the plaintiff applied for installation of an
CS SCJ 398/24 Page No.1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
electricity meter from Defendant No. 1/ BSES, which was
approved. However, when the officials of the electricity
department visited the premises for installation of the electricity
meter, the said persons did not allow the installation.
Consequently, BSES issued a letter stating that the electricity
meter could not be installed as the property was disputed.It is
further stated that the plaintiff also applied for an electricity
connection in the year 2022, but BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. is
now demanding a written no Objection Certificate from the said
Suresh Dubey and his wife Santoshi. Therefore, the plaintiff has
filed the present application seeking a direction to BSES Yamuna
Power Ltd. to provide an interim electricity connection to the
plaintiff.
3. In support of her contentions, the plaintiff has placed on
record photocopies of the applications submitted to BSES along
with the acknowledgments and the refusal letter issued by BSES.
The plaintiff has also placed on record a photocopy of the alleged
GPA dated 21.01.2021 executed by Shashi Devi in favour of her
husband Rakesh Kumar, along with documents such as Aadhaar
card and voter identity card of herself, her husband and her
children, as well as the school progress report, all of which
reflect the address as: 2190, first floor, Gaushala Area,
Yamuna Bazar, Delhi-110006.
4. Reply has been filed by Defendant No. 1/BSES. Learned
counsel for Defendant No. 1 has submitted that Defendant No. 1
is not avoiding supply of electricity to the plaintiff and that the
hindrance, if any, is being created only by Defendant Nos. 2 and
3.
CS SCJ 398/24 Page No.2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
5. Learned counsel for Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, without filing a
reply, has argued the application and submitted that Defendant
No. 2 is the owner of the suit property and is residing therein
with his family, including Defendant No. 3, for several years and
plaintiff has executed forged and fabricated documents, for which
a criminal complaint has been filed by the defendant, copy of
which has been annexed alongwith the written statement.
6. Perusal of the joint Written Statement filed by the
defendants shows that the defendants have alleged that defendant
no:2 is the owner of the property by way of an alleged will copy
of which has been annexed and that the plaintiff and her husband
are residing on the roof of the defendants’ house in a temporary
structure (barsati). However, defendants have denied that the suit
property is a temple or a public temple, and has submitted that
there is only a private place of worship. It is further submitted
that Prem Narayan was never the owner of the suit property and
was merely the brother-in-law of Defendant No. 2, who expired
in the year 2000. It is contended that the defendants never
disconnected the electricity supply and that the plaintiff was
residing illegally without any electricity connection and was once
booked for theft of electricity. It is further submitted that the
plaintiff’s application for a new electricity connection was
objected to by Defendant No. 2 as the owner, and the electricity
department denied installation without the owner’s permission.
7. It is pertinent to mention that the present case is not one for
adjudication of title to the suit property. The present suit has been
CS SCJ 398/24 Page No.3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
filed seeking a mandatory injunction directing Respondent No. 1
to install an electricity meter in the name of the plaintiff at
property bearing No. 2190, first floor, Gaushala Area, Yamuna
Bazar, Delhi-110006. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that
she is the owner of the property, as she has herself admitted that
she is not the owner. It is further relevant to note that the
defendants in the written statement has admitted that the
plaintiff is in possession of the property and is residing on the
roof in a temporary structure (barsati), though they have
denied that the plaintiff is a legal occupant.
8. In the considered view of this Court, the issue as to
whether the plaintiff is a legal occupant of the property or not is a
triable issue, which can be decided only after the parties are
afforded an opportunity to lead evidence. At the stage of deciding
the present application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC,
the Court is required to consider only three aspects, namely,
whether a prima facie case is made out, whether the balance of
convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff, and whether
irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff.
9. As far as occupancy/possession of the plaintiff is admitted,
it is pertinent to mention that The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
Sudarshan Kumar Sharma and Anr. v. State NCT of Delhi and
Ors W.P.(C) 13217/2019 on the aspect of supply of electricity
connection to an occupant has held -
“There is no gainsaying that electricity is an
essential service, of which a person cannot be
deprived without cogent, lawful reason. It is well-
settled that even if disputes exist as to ownership of
CS SCJ 398/24 Page No.4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
the property at which an electricity connection is
sought, the concerned authorities cannot deprive
the legal occupant thereof by insisting that an NOC
be furnished from others who also claim to be
owners. Under a similar circumstance, where a
request for supply of electricity connection was
declined to a tenant by the authorities, the
Supreme Court in Dilip (Dead) through Lrs. v.
Satish & Others, Criminal Appeal No. 810/2022
observed as under:- “... It is now well settled
proposition of law that electricity is a basic
amenity of which a person cannot be deprived.
Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the
ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no
objection certificate. All that the electricity supply
authority is required to examine is whether the
applicant for electricity connection is in
occupation of the premises in question…..”
10. Moreover, In Umesh Chand Sharma v. BSES Rajdhani
Power Ltd. & Anr. CM(M) 191/2015& CM Nos. 4208-09/2015 it
was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as follows -
“It has been repeatedly observed by the Supreme
Court as well as by this Court that electricity is an
essential requirement without which any person
in occupation cannot enjoy the property.
Electricity connection cannot have the effect of
conferring any title on the person seeking/getting
electricity connection…….” It was further held-
“Mere filing of a complaint that NOC was not
genuine, the petitioner cannot be deprived of
basic amenities of life. Thus, without prejudice
to rights and contentions of the parties, following
directions are issued:- (i) BSES/respondent No. 1
is directed to grant a fresh electricity connection
to the petitioner without insisting for no-
objection certification or title documents from
the petitioner……….”
CS SCJ 398/24 Page No.5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
11. In view of the above pronouncements, since
possession/occupancy of the plaintiff is admitted, a prima facie
case stands established in her favour for grant of electricity
connection. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the
plaintiff, as denial of electricity would cause grave hardship.
Electricity being an essential amenity cannot be denied to an
occupant without due process of law. The plaintiff would suffer
irreparable injury if deprived of this basic facility.
12. In view of the foregoing, the application under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is allowed and Respondent
No. 1/BSES Yamuna Power Limited is directed to install
electricty meter in the name of the plaintiff at the address
property bearing No. 2190, first floor, Gaushala Area, Yamuna
Bazar, Delhi-110006 in consonance with the DERC guidelines
without insisting on the no objection certificate. Defendant
no:2 and 3 are also directed to comply with the order.
13. Nothing herein shall tantamount to expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case.
Announced in the open Court
on 31.01.2026
(HALA QUAMAR)
Civil Judge-1 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS SCJ 398/24 Page No.6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --