Delhi High Court
Mohd. Haneef vs Smt. Rashidan on 25 March, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M. (Main) No.1504 of 2009
% 25.03.2010
MOHD. HANEEF ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shamim A. Khan, Advocate.
Versus
SMT. RASHIDAN ......Respondent
Through: Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.
Date of Reserve: 12th March, 2010
Date of Order: 25th March, 2010
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner gave an undertaking to the court of Additional Rent Controller on
7th February, 2008 that he shall pay electricity and water charges as per consumption and
as per reading in the meter. He will get a sub-meter installed for electricity and water
within one week at his own expense. After giving this statement in the court, he
withdrew the suit. The respondent had also given a statement that he had no objection if
the petitioner gets a sub-meter installed and directly makes the payment for consumption
of water and electricity to the Department without prejudice to the rights of the parties.
2. Electricity of the premises was thereafter disconnected because of non-payment of
dues and the petitioner then approached Additional Rent Controller under Section 45 (3)
of Delhi Rent Control Act seeking a direction for the landlord to get the electricity and
water supply reconnected. Learned Additional Rent Controller observed that it was the
petitioner himself who had given an undertaking to the court that he would pay electricity
and water dues as per consumption and as per reading of sub-meter directly to the
Department concerned. The petitioner's averment that he had sent money order charges
to the respondent was also found false as nothing was placed on record to show that
money order was sent. Learned Additional Rent Controller, therefore, dismissed the
application under Section 45 (3) of Delhi Rent Control Act.
3. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 13th October, 2009
on the ground that it was barred by limitation. An application made by the petitioner
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also dismissed observing that the petitioner had
not disclosed sufficient cause which prevented him from filing the appeal within period of
limitation.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the undertaking given by the petitioner
was vague and the petitioner could not have got sub-meter installed since he was a tenant.
He submitted that it was the responsibility of the landlord to keep the electricity and water
supply running in the premises and keep paying the charges even if petitioner had not
paid the consumption charges for water and electricity.
5. The respondent counsel submitted that petitioner not only did not pay charges for
consumption resulting into disconnection of electricity but also indulged into direct theft
of electricity for which a theft bill was likely to be served on the landlord/respondent. He
submitted that the landlord cannot be saddened with the responsibility of providing
electricity and water to the tenant, who does not want to pay the charges for electricity
and water consumed despite giving an undertaking to the court.
6. Considering the facts that the petitioner failed to comply with the undertaking; did
not get sub-meter installed and did not make payment of the charges of electricity and
water consumed, I find no reason to entertain this petition. The petition is hereby
dismissed.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
MARCH 25, 2010
'AA'
