Recently, the Delhi High Court held that a tenant in lawful possession cannot be deprived of electricity, a basic amenity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, merely because of a pending landlord-tenant dispute or the landlord’s refusal to grant a No Objection Certificate. The Court firmly observing that essential services cannot be used as pressure tools in private tenancy disputes.
Brief Facts:
The writ petition arose from a dispute concerning the premises bearing GB-20, Third Floor, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi–110027, where the petitioner, Shri Maiki Jain, claimed lawful tenancy since 2016 under registered lease deeds. An electricity connection bearing CA No. 103765522, though registered in the names of the landlords, had been supplying power to the petitioner, who paid the bills directly to BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
In September – October 2025, due to temporary financial difficulty, the petitioner defaulted on dues, leading to disconnection and removal of the meter on 28 November 2025. The arrears were cleared on the same day. Despite full payment, restoration was denied on the ground that the landlords refused to issue an NOC.
Parallelly, a civil suit for recovery of possession was pending before the Tis Hazari Courts, along with a counter claim filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of essential services.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the petitioner was a lawful tenant in settled possession and had regularly paid electricity charges in the past. It was argued that once all outstanding dues stood cleared, the continued denial of electricity was wholly arbitrary.
The insistence on an NOC from the landlords, especially amid an ongoing tenancy dispute, was assailed as unreasonable and oppressive. Crucially, it was submitted that disconnection of electricity amounted to a violation of Article 21, as access to electricity forms part of the right to live with dignity.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, submitted that the registered consumers were the landlords, and electricity had been disconnected for non-payment. It was pointed out that the landlords had expressly communicated their objection to restoration. It was further argued that the meter was under the landlords’ control, making reconnection difficult without their cooperation, and therefore insistence on an NOC was justified.
Observations of the Court:
Justice Mini Pushkarna undertook a careful balancing of private property rights and constitutional guarantees, emphatically rejecting the notion that essential services can be weaponised in civil disputes. The Court reiterated that electricity is a basic amenity intrinsically linked to the right to life under Article 21, and its denial to a person in lawful possession cannot be sustained merely due to a pending eviction suit.
The Court made it clear that “a tenant in lawful possession cannot be deprived of electricity merely because of refusal of the landlord to grant an NOC”, particularly when no dues remain outstanding.
Importantly, the Court clarified that restoring electricity would not create or recognise any proprietary or possessory rights in favour of the petitioner, nor would it prejudice the pending civil proceedings, thereby ensuring that constitutional protections do not distort substantive property rights.
The decision of the Court:
Allowing the writ petition, the Court directed BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. to restore electricity to the third floor using the existing meter without insisting on any NOC from the landlords, with liberty to seek police assistance if required.
The Court further held that while the petitioner must continue to comply with billing and payment obligations, denial of electricity after clearance of dues is impermissible. The ratio decidendi is unequivocal, essential services like electricity, being part of the right to life and dignity, cannot be denied to a lawful occupant as a tool to enforce private landlord-tenant disputes.
Case Title: Shri Maiki Jain vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 18953/2025
Coram: Justice Mini Pushkarna
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Vishal Saxena, Meenakshi Garg, Rashi Aggarwal
Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Sharique Hussain, Kirti Garg
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
