Delhi High Court
Mukesh vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd & Anr. on 12 July, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 186/2022
Date of Decision : 12.07.2022
IN THE MATTER OF :-
SH. MUKESH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Anunaya Mehta, Advocate
versus
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1
Mr. Gaurav Sarin and Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar,
Advocates for respondent No. 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 30179/2022 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
FAO 186/2022,
CM APPL. 30180/2022 (Interim Relief) and
CM APPL. 30181/2022 (Addl. Doc.)
1. By way of the present appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section
151 CPC, the appellant has assailed the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the
learned Vacation Judge/ADJ-01, Patiala House Courts, Delhi in Summer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:15.07.2022
14:09:52
Vacation Case No. 01/2022, whereby the application filed by the
appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed. The
appellant also seeks direction to respondent No.1 to consider and install an
electricity meter and connection at the suit property in his favor, upon an
application being made by him in this regard.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has preferred
the aforesaid suit seeking relief of mandatory and permanent injunction as well as
directions to respondent No. 1 to install a new electricity connection at property
bearing No. B-1/1678, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070 (hereinafter, referred to
as the 'subject premises') in his name. In the suit, the appellant/plaintiff has
claimed himself to be in occupation of the subject premises since August, 2021,
pursuant to an oral family settlement agreement.
He has contended that a family settlement was arrived at between the
parties It is claimed that the suit property was purchased through HUF funds and
as per family settlement, the same has fallen to the share of the appellant.
Learned counsel submits that the electricity supply in the subject premises
provided through CA No. 151294699, which was in the name of respondent No.
2, has now been disconnected at her request. He further submits that respondent
No. 2 is none other than the wife of appellant's brother.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Section 43 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 to submit that respondent No. 1/BSES is dutybound to
provide electricity connection to any 'occupant' of the premises in question.
Reference has also been made to the decision dated 13.05.2022 passed by the
Supreme Court in Dilip (Dead) through Lrs. v. Satish & Others, Criminal Appeal
No. 810/2022. In addition, reliance has been placed on various receipts of the
electricity bills paid by the appellant, as well as certain photographs, copies of
which have been placed on record.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:15.07.2022
14:09:52
4. Issue notice.
5. Mr. Gaurav Sarin, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, accepts notice. He
has disputed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submitted that
respondent No.2 is the owner of the subject premises by virtue of Sale Deed dated
17.01.2012. It is further submitted that all the electricity bills were paid by her.
Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision dated 18.09.2017 passed by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajesh Sharma v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
& Ors., W.P.(C) 5617/2015 to urge that the appellant being an unauthorized
occupant, the electricity supply was rightly disconnected.
Learned counsel, however, has not denied that the appellant is in the
occupation of the subject premises, albeit illegally. It is also undisputed that an
electricity connection existed in the subject premises.
6. At this stage, this Court deems it apposite to refer to the observations made
by the Supreme Court in Dilip (Dead) (Supra), wherein it has been held as under:-
"It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic
amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be
declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord
to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply
authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for
electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question.
xxx
The impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
It is however made clear that electricity supply granted, shall not be
discontinued, subject to compliance by the Respondents of the terms
and conditions of supply of electricity by the electricity department
including payment of charges for the same."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:15.07.2022
14:09:52
7. In the present case, it is undisputed that the appellant is in occupation of the
subject premises and that there existed an electricity connection, which has been
subsequently disconnected.
8. There is no gainsaying that electricity is an essential service and the
appellant has claimed possession of the subject premises since August, 2021. The
factum of the appellant's occupation of the subject premises is not disputed. As
such, the appellant has shown existence of a prima facie case as well as balance
of convenience in his favor.
9. Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent
No.1/BSES and, on instructions, submits that, if directed, a prepaid electricity
connection would be provided to the appellant at the subject premises.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid and without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties, it is directed that a prepaid electricity connection be
installed in the name of the appellant at the subject premises, subject to the
following terms:
(i) Appellant shall make an application for grant of a fresh prepaid
electricity connection in his own name.
(ii) Appellant shall comply with all the codal and commercial
requirements of respondent No.1/BSES.
(iii) Appellant shall not seek adjustment of the security deposit. However,
on the appellant vacating the premises or being evicted and surrender of the
electricity meter, he shall be entitled to refund of the security deposit
subject to adjustment of any dues of respondent No.1/BSES.
(iv) Appellant shall pay the consumption charges in accordance with the
bills raised by respondent No.1/BSES from time to time.
(v) Respondent No.1/BSES shall be entitled to disconnect the electricity
supply in case the appellant fails to pay the electricity charges.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:15.07.2022
14:09:52
(vi) Application of the appellant shall be processed expeditiously, as and
when filed, and electricity connection shall be installed within two working
days of his completing all the formalities.
11. It is clarified that this order is without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties/any other person and shall not be construed as
recognizing rights of any nature whatsoever, including the ownership rights of the
appellant with regard to the subject premises. The observations made hereinabove
are prima facie in nature. As such, no special equities shall flow in favour of the
appellant on account of this order.
12. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that
the dispute being between family members, the matter may be referred to the
Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of respondent No.2, on instructions, submits that she has no objection
to the aforesaid request made on behalf of the appellant.
14. Accordingly, list before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation
Centre on 18.07.2022.
15. Reply, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
16. List before this Court on 26.09.2022.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
JULY 12, 2022
na
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:15.07.2022
14:09:52
