Delhi High Court
Siya Ram Dass vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution ... on 24 May, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9178/2021
Date of Decision: 24.05.2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
SIYA RAM DASS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Advocate
Versus
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Kr. Srivastava & Mr.
Akhil Hasija, Advocates for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Sachin Aggarwal, Advocate for
Respondent No. 3
Mr. Pashant Batra, Advocate for Respondent
No. 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner seeking following
reliefs:-
"1. To pass a direction under section 43 and section 44 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 directing the Respondents to provide fresh /
new Electricity Connection in the name of Petitioner at his
tenanted premises bearing no. 781, RISHI NAGAR, RANI BAGH,
DELHI-110034.
2. To pass direction to charge actual consumption bill of
electricity of suit property and not provisional or ad-hoc.
3. To pass cost of the Writ Petition."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:26.05.2022
11:03:45
2. On 27.08.2021, this Court while issuing notice noted the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the
petitioner is a tenant at premises bearing No. 781, Rishi Nagar, Rani
Bagh, Delhi-110034 by virtue of Rent Deed dated 14.11.2019. It is
claimed that respondent No. 3/Mr. Gulshan Kumar (as per amended
memo of parties) is the landlord/owner.
3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that pursuant to his
application seeking electricity connection, a site inspection was carried
out during which respondent No. 4/Mr. Ravinder Singh (as per amended
memo of parties) has raised a dispute and claimed himself to be the
owner of the premises.
In the said order, it was also noted that both Gulshan Kumar &
Ravinder Singh have filed civil suit for possession against each other and
have claimed themselves to be the owner of the property.
4. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court directed to
implead both Gulshan Kumar & Ravinder Singh as respondents, who
have been impleaded and represented through their respective counsels.
5. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 & 4
have confirmed the aforesaid position and submit that civil suits are still
pending between the parties.
6. On a specific query, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, on
instructions, admits that presently the petitioner is occupying a portion of
the said property. The portion presently occupied by the petitioner is
highlighted in the Site Verification Report, a copy of which has been
placed on record as (Annexure R-1) alongwith the short affidavit/Status
Report filed on behalf of respondent No. 1/TPDDL. As per the said Site
Verification Report, the petitioner is stated to be occupying the shaded
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:26.05.2022
11:03:45
portion in the map depicted therein under the heading 'Applied
Premises'.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that the shop shown
in the said Site Verification Report is occupied by respondent No. 4.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, on instructions, submits that
being the landlord/owner, respondent No. 3 has no objection to petitioner
seeking electricity connection.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 while referring to the
premises layout plan depicted in the said Site Verification Report has
shown an apprehension inasmuch as there exists an inter se connection
between the 'Applied Premises' and 'Adjacent premises', which may
lead to safety hazards.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the
petitioner undertakes to use the electricity connection only for the shaded
portion i.e., 'Applied Premises' and not for the 'Adjacent premises'. The
undertaking given on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record and he is
held bound by the same. He also submits that the petitioner will submit a
fresh application seeking installation of new electricity connection and
also complete all other formalities, as required by respondent No. 1.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that as and when the
fresh application is received, the same would be processed expeditiously
and considered, subject to the petitioner completing all the formalities.
12. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of in the following
terms:
(i) Petitioner shall make an application for grant of a fresh electricity
connection in his own name.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:26.05.2022
11:03:45
(ii) Respondent No. 1 shall process petitioner's application for
installation of a fresh electricity connection without insisting on a NOC
from the owner.
(iii) Petitioner, shall comply with all the codal and commercial
requirements of respondent No. 1/TPDDL.
(iv) Petitioner shall also deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with respondent
No. 1/TPDDL in addition to the regular security deposit that the
petitioner is required to make under the rules or regulations.
(v) Petitioner shall pay the consumption charges in accordance with
the bills raised by respondent No. 1/TPDDL from time to time.
(vi) Petitioner shall not seek adjustment of the security deposit.
However, on the petitioner vacating the premises or being evicted and
surrender of the electricity meter, petitioner shall be entitled to refund of
the security deposit subject to adjustment of any dues of respondent
No. 1.
(vii) Respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to disconnect the electricity
supply in case petitioner fails to pay the electricity charges.
(viii) Application of the petitioner shall be processed and electricity
connection shall be installed within two working days of the petitioner
completing all the formalities.
(ix) The petitioner shall remain liable under the said electricity
connection.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:26.05.2022
11:03:45
13. It is clarified that this order is without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties and shall not be construed as recognising any
tenancy or possessory rights of the petitioner with regard to the subject
property and would be without prejudice to the pending dispute with the
landlord. No special equities shall flow in favour of the petitioner
because of this order.
14. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
MAY 24, 2022
p'ma
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:26.05.2022
11:03:45
