Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 454/24
Nand Kishore Vs. Ramesh Chander
17.12.2024
Present : Plaintiff with Ld. Counsel Ms. Shivani.
Mr. V.D. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1.
Mr. Rajan Narang, AR / Senior Manager (Legal) for
defendant no. 2.
This is an application of the plaintiff for issuance of
directions to defendant no. 2/TPDDL for providing fresh electricity
connection in the name of the plaintiff at the suit premises, which is
taken up.
Briefly stated, plaintiff is admittedly the tenant of
defendant no. 1 at property bearing no. C-2/780, Sector-27, Rohini,
Delhi-110042 (
or the “suit property”). Some disputes have arisen
between the landlord and the tenant and it is stated that in pursuance
thereof, defendant no. 1 in connivance with defendant no. 2 removed
the electricity connection from the suit property where the plaintiff is
purportedly running a shop.
The grievance of the plaintiff is that when he approached
defendant no. 2 for restoration/fresh electricity connection at the suit
property, his request was met with a Notification Suspension Letter
from defendant no. 2
vide no. 2038372551 wherein plaintiff was
asked to remove certain deficiencies, one of them being issuance of
NOC from the owner.
It is orally stated that there being disputes between the
landlord and the tenant, it is obvious that defendant no. 1 would never
issue any NOC. By way of the present application, plaintiff has
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
requested that defendant no. 2 be directed to supply fresh electricity
connection at the suit property subject to just conditions.
Defendant no. 1 has opposed the application.
Defendant no. 2 states that connection can only be
supplied upon completion of codal formalities.
Parties have been heard. Record perused.
It has been held time and again that electricity is a basic
amenity of which a person should not be deprived. Electricity cannot
be declined to a tenant on the ground of refusal of the landlord to issue
no objection certificate. All that the authorities are required to examine
is that whether the applicant is in occupation of the premises in
question (
see case titled “Dilip (Dead) through LRs Vs. Satish & Ors;
Crl.APP. 810/2022).
It is undisputed that plaintiff is the tenant of defendant no.
1 and that he is in possession of the suit property. Thus, taking cue
from the aforesaid judgment and other like judgments (
see Sudarshan
Kumar Sharma & ANR. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.; W.P. ©
13217/2019, DOD 14.11.2022), defendant no. 2 is directed to consider
the application of the plaintiff
vide no. 2038372551 without insisting
an NOC from the owner subject to deposition of security amount of
Rs. 25,000/- by the plaintiff with defendant no. 2 and subject to
completion of necessary formalities.
It is however made clear that the abovesaid order is
without prejudice to the rights, contentions and defence of defendant
no. 1. It is also clarified that the directions are also subject to the
completion of codal formalities by the plaintiff, as per rules of
defendant no. 2. Upon installation of the electricity connection at the
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
suit property, plaintiff shall pay the consumption charges in
accordance with the bills raised by defendant no. 2 from time to time
till he continues to occupy the suit premises.
Application accordingly stands disposed of.
Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to an expression
on the merits of the case.
Put up on 25.02.2025 for further proceedings.
( Divya Malhotra )
SCJ / RC / North
Rohini Court / 17.12.2024
-- 3 of 3 --