Suresh Kumar vs Mahinder Mehta And Anr.
1991 Latest Caselaw 678 Del

JUDGMENT

S.C. Jain, J.

(1) HEARD. Admittedly, the respondent no. 1, Mahinder Mehta is in occupation of the suit premises. As per record he was enjoying the facility of electricity which was disconnected on 4.7.89. On his application moved u/Sec. 45(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Addl. Rent Controller directed the restoration of the electricity within one month. This order of the Addl. Rent Controller was confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 26.8.91.

(2) Aggrieved Suresh Chand petitioner has filed the present petition. His first contention is that the respondent is not a tenant under him. As per own admission the respondent became tenant in the suit premises under the brother of the petitioner. As there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent, therefore no order under Section 45(3) can be passed. He further stated that the respondent himself used the electricity and the meter got burnt and he did not disconnect his electricity. After appreciating all these facts, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that respondent no. 1 has been illegally deprived of the use of electricity. In these circumstances, the order was passed directing the petitioner to restore the electricity within one month. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are real brothers. "Suresh Chand claims to be owner of the property. Both the Courts came to the conclusion that in collusion with each other the two brothers want to oust the respondent from the premises by disconnecting his electricity. The person, who is in occupation of the premises whether as a tenant under the appellant or under his brother Jai Parkash he is entitled to use electricity. He is not unauthorised occupant. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders. This petition is dismissed. This is a prima facie view and will not affect the merits of the case.