Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 115/25
NITIN ARORA VS. BSES
12.06.2025
Present: Plaintiff in person alongwith Ld. Counsel Mr. S K
Shukla.
Mr. Prashant, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1.
Mr. Anuj Arora, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2
through VC.
A fresh application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
CPC has been filed. Taken on record. Copy supplied.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that he wishes
to withdraw the previous application dated 12.02.2025 under
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Accordingly, the same stands
withdrawn and disposed.
Arguments have been heard on the interim
application.
Be put up for orders at 04:00 PM.
(Dr. Saema Jain)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
East/KKD Courts/Delhi
12.06.2025
AT 04:00 PM
Present: None.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has pressed for his
application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC wherein he has
sought installation of electricity meter in the suit property i.e.
Shop No. 7 & 8 of property bearing no. 13/82, Geeta Colony,
Delhi-110031. It has been argued on behalf of the plaintiff that
-1/4-
-- 1 of 4 --
the shop on the suit property is being run without access to
electricity which is a basic right and therefore, the application
ought to be decided in the favour of the plaintiff.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 has opposed the
application on the ground that the plaintiff is admittedly not the
owner of the suit property nor is he a registered consumer and
therefore, no electricity meter can be provided to him.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2, on the other
hand, has opposed the application by contending that the plaintiff
was a tenant whose tenancy has been terminated. It is submitted
that an eviction order has also been passed against the plaintiff
and an appeal against the same is pending before the Ld. District
Judge, East District, Karkardooma. Thus, it is argued that the
interim relief ought not be granted to the plaintiff as he is an
illegal occupant of the suit property. It has also been argued that
Seema Rani is not a party to the suit and relief cannot be granted
to the plaintiff with respect to her shop also.
Arguments have been considered. Record has been
perused.
First and foremost, in order to appreciate the last
objection raised by defendant no. 2 that Ms. Seema Rani is not a
party to the present suit and hence, no relief can be granted to the
plaintiff concerning her portion in the suit property, it becomes
necessary to briefly refer to the facts as mentioned in the
pleadings.
The suit property comprises two adjoining shops,
namely Shop No. 7 and Shop No. 8. Shop No. 7 was initially
let out to the plaintiff’s father while Shop No. 8 was let out to the
-2/4-
-- 2 of 4 --
husband of Seema Rani. Eviction decrees have been passed
against both the plaintiff and Ms. Seema Rani in respect of their
respective shops. However, it is an admitted position that wall
between the two shops has been removed and the two shops now
function as a single, unified premises.
It is also not disputed that, prior, to the
disconnection of electricity, both shops were supplied electricity
through common electricity meter in the name of the husband of
Seema Rani i.e. Darshan Lal. In such circumstances, even though
Ms. Seema Rani is not arrayed as a party in the present suit, the
relief sought by the plaintiff with respect to installation of
electricity connection / meter cannot be denied merely on that
ground. The unified nature of the premises and the earlier joint
electrification sufficiently justify the locus of the plaintiff.
Furthermore, it is admitted by both parties that an
eviction order has indeed been passed against the plaintiff by the
Ld. Civil Court and an appeal against the judgment is pending.
Moreover, perusal of the record reveals that the execution of the
decree of the Ld. Civil Court has been stayed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi till the disposal of the appeal. The plaintiff,
therefore, continues to remain in possession of the suit property.
It is pertinent to take note that electricity is a basic
amenity of which a person cannot be deprived without lawful
reason. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Dilip (Dead) Through LRs Vs. Satish
& Ors. 2022 SC 810. Denial of such a basic facility must be
justified by compelling circumstances. In the present case, this
Court does not find any justification for depriving the plaintiff of
-3/4-
-- 3 of 4 --
this basic necessity.
In view of the above observations, the interim
application stands allowed.
Defendant no. 1 is directed to install an electricity
connection at the suit property, upon the plaintiff submitting the
requisite application and fulfilling all formalities.
It is clarified that this order is only interim in nature
and shall not be construed as conferring any rights upon the
plaintiff in respect of ownership or tenancy. It shall also have no
bearing on the final adjudication of the rights of the parties in the
suit.
Be put up for arguments on the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 25.08.2025.
(Dr. Saema Jain)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
East/KKD Courts/Delhi
12.06.2025
-4/4-
-- 4 of 4 --