Delhi High Court
Suresh Tiwari vs N.D.P.L. on 17 February, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 16528/2006
% Date of decision : 17th February, 2010
SURESH TIWARI .... Petitioner
Through Mr. V. K. Goel, Advocate
versus
N.D.P.L. .... Respondent
Through Mr. Vikram Nandrajog and Mr.
Sushil Jariwal, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
1. The petitioner has impugned a letter dated 29.09.2006 issued
by the respondent stating inter alia that dues of Rs.3,40,820/- is
outstanding against electricity connection of the petitioner's premises
bearing no. K.No.35400131735 H. The letter further states that if the
said amount is not paid within 15 days, the same shall be transferred
to K.No.35400134174 C as live connection.
2. K. No. 35400131735 H was installed in the name of Mr. Mohan
Lal for ground floor of property bearing no. 2/71, Harijan Basti,
Rohtak Road, Delhi. K. No.3540013174 C is in the name of the
petitioner and is installed in the same property to record consumption
of electricity supplied to the first floor.
3. The petitioner purchased the ground floor by way of documents
WPC No.16528/2006 Page 1
executed on 21.06.1995 and on the said date became owner of the
entire building constructed on the property measuring 48 sq.yds.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the
outstanding amount and the liability of Rs.3,40,820/- which is
payable on K.35400131735 H. However, two contentions are raised.
It is submitted that ground floor of the property is a separate premises
and therefore, decision of this Court in Madhu Garg & Anr. Vs.
NDPL Vol. 129(2006) Delhi Law Times 213 (DB) is not applicable.
Secondly, it is submitted that Mohan Lal subsequently become a
tenant and occupied the ground floor after he had sold the property to
the petitioner, therefore, the said dues cannot be claimed from the
petitioner.
5. The outstanding dues of Rs. 3,40,820/- of K No.35400131735
H are for the period of September, 2003 to September, 2006. It is the
case of the petitioner himself that he has purchased the ground floor
of the property from Mr. Mohan Lal on 21.06.1995. Thereafter, the
petitioner became the owner of the entire building on the said plot of
land. I am not inclined to accept the submission of the petitioner that
ground floor should be considered as distinct property/premises and
the electricity dues of the ground floor cannot be clubbed with the
electricity dues payable for the first floor. Both ground floor and first
floor are owned by the petitioner and the amount due also relates to
the period after 21.06.1995, when the petitioner had purchased the
ground floor.
6. The petitioner has not placed any evidence or material on
record to establish that the ground floor of the property was let out to
Mr. Mohan Lal after he had sold the property to the petitioner in 1995.
There is no rent agreement, rent receipt or any other document on
WPC No.16528/2006 Page 2
record to prove the tenancy of Mr. Mohan Lal. In fact, the petitioner
had filed affidavit dated 25.01.1999 with the respondent erstwhile
DVB that he was the owner of the entire property including the
ground floor and first floor.
7. In the present case, the petitioner is admittedly the owner of the
first floor and second floor w.e.f. 21.06.1995 and the electricity dues
also pertain to the period September, 2003 to September, 2006.
Ground floor and the first floor are constructed on the same plot. It
would therefore, not to be correct to treat ground floor and first floor
as separate properties for electricity billing. The respondent is
entitled to transfer the dues in respect of the electricity connection of
the ground floor to the electricity connection relating to the first floor.
The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
FEBRUARY 17, 2010
B/P
WPC No.16528/2006 Page 3
