Manmohan Sarin ( 1 ) WITH the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. ( 2 ) THE short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a landlord/owner who does not happen to be a registered consumer of electricity can be saddled with the liability in respect of the electricity charges of the tenants simply because of ownership of the premises? Petitioner claims that it purchased the premises bearing Nos. 50-51, Regal Building, New Delhi, vide transfer documents dated 15/11/1982. However, it could get the actual physical possession from the two tenants, viz. Suresh Chand and J. N. Mehra, as the said two tenants had unauthorisedly transferred the possession of the premises in favour of one Shaukat Rai Mehrotra. ( 3 ) PETITIONER states that perforce it had to accept the attornment of the said Shaukat Rai Mehrotra as a tenant. In the event, petitioner filed an eviction petition against the said Shaukat Rai Mehrotra and finally obtained the physical possession of the premises on 30th of May, 1997. On the said date, the premises in question did not have any electricity connection. Petitioner, thereafter, applied for grant of an electricity connection vide letter dated 27/08/1997. The respondents, in the meanwhile, on 15th of October, 1997, served a demand notice on the petitioner for Rs. 8,20,084. 00 (rupees eight lakhs twenty thousand eighty four only) , towards arrears of electricity charges for the period upto October, 1997. The electricity supply to the premises in question had been disconnected first on 31st of July, 1995 and finally for the second time on 23rd of April, 1997. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed before me that the electricity connections, against which arrears are claimed, were in the names of the two tenants, viz. Suresh Chand and J. N. Mehra and they were the registered consumers. Accordingly, the privity of contract, if any, was between the respondent NDMC and the tenants, i. e. the registered con- sumers, who were also the actual users of the electricity. In these facts, it is not open to the respondents to fasten the liability of arrears on the petitioner, which was neither the registered consumer nor the actual user of electricity. I am supported in this view by the decision of the Bombay High Court in Fateh Chand Murli Dhar and Ors. In these facts, it is not open to the respondents to fasten the liability of arrears on the petitioner, which was neither the registered consumer nor the actual user of electricity. I am supported in this view by the decision of the Bombay High Court in Fateh Chand Murli Dhar and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Nagpur, AIR 1985 Bombay 1971. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties further point out that respondent NDMC has also filed a suit for recovery of the outstanding amount against the registered users. Vide an interim order dated 18/12/1997, in the present writ petition, the operation of the impugned demand letter was stayed. Vide another order dated 13/04/1998, the respondents were directed not to withhold the grant of permanent electricity connection to the petitioner on account of the impugned demand. ( 6 ) THE writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. A writ of prohibition shall issue, restraining the respondents from recovering the impugned demand from the petitioner. The electricity connection shall be granted to the petitioner, if otherwise found eligible. There shall be no order as to costs.