PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER claims to be owner of 800 square yards of land comprised in property No. A-16, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi. Petitioner applied to the respondent for grant of an electricity connection in May 2003. Connection was denied by the respondent intimating that 4 connections were earlier obtained. Dues are pending. Till dues were cleared, fresh connection would not be granted. ( 2 ) AS per the petitioner, it had never obtained any electricity connection. Mehta Offset Private Limited had obtained electricity connection. Dues, if any, were payable by Mehta Offset Private Limited. The said dues were stated to be for a separate and distinct premises. As per the petitioner, the dues are sub judice in different Courts. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported as (1995) 2 SCC 648 , Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar electricity Board as also a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported as 124 (2005) DLT 688, Madhu Garg and Anr. Vs. North Delhi Power limited and Anr. and urged that third party dues cannot be thrust upon the petitioner. ( 4 ) COUNTER affidavit states that arrears in sum of Rs. 35,43,263/- are outstanding in respect of 4 connections being K. Nos. 1019100424/bs-01, 33401123388/np, 33400123036/nx and 33400123044/il. It is further stated that as per affidavit, Annexure-B, deposed by Shri Dalip Tuli, who has instituted the petition on behalf of the petitioner, Dalip Tuli was the sole proprietor of mehta Offset Works. It is further stated that Dalip Tuli is also a Director of mehta Offset Private Limited. It is stated that M/s. Tuli Offset Printers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Mehta Offset Works are one and the same entity. It is stated that dalip Tuli is the human face of M/s. Mehta Offset Works, Tuli Offset Printers pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Mehta Offset Pvt. Ltd. ( 5 ) IN the rejoinder affidavit it is stated that the assertion that Dalip tuli is the sole proprietor of M/s. Mehta Offset Works is false. It is also stated that it is a false assertion that the said fact stands established by the affidavit sworn by Dalip Tuli in the suit filed before Ms. Kiran Bansal, learned civil Judge, Delhi. ( 6 ) DALIP Tuli was directed to remain present in Court on 13. It is also stated that it is a false assertion that the said fact stands established by the affidavit sworn by Dalip Tuli in the suit filed before Ms. Kiran Bansal, learned civil Judge, Delhi. ( 6 ) DALIP Tuli was directed to remain present in Court on 13. 1. 2006. He admitted having signed the affidavit disclosing himself to be the sole proprietor of M/s. Mehta Offset Works. He admitted being a Director of Mehta offset Works Pvt. Ltd. ( 7 ) DECISIONS relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner in Madhu arg s case (Supra) and Isha Marbles case (Supra) have no applicability in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The said decisions deal with the issue, whether past liabilities of a third party can be enforced against a bona fide purchaser of the premises wherein connection was granted by the electricity supplying company and arrears had accumulated. ( 8 ) DALIP Tuli is the human face of the petitioner. He is the human face of M/s. Mehta Offset Pvt. Limited. He is the human face of Mehta Offset Works, a sole proprietor concern of Dalip Tuli. ( 9 ) IT is not in dispute that the area of the plot bearing No. A-16, naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II is 2400 square yards. ( 10 ) WHO is the registered owner of the plot in the records of the DDA has not been stated. How has the petitioner come to own 800 square yards of land out of 2400 sq. yards remains a mystery. ( 11 ) LEASES executed by DDA are statutorily prescribed under the Nazul Land rules, 1981. The leases do not permit partition of the land. ( 12 ) IN the decision reported as 2005 (7) SCC 393 , Amit Products India limited Vs. Chief Engineer, their Lordships of the Supreme Court upheld refusal of grant of electricity connection to the appellant company for the reason dues payable by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Limited were outstanding and the human face of the two companies was found to be the same. There is no merit in the petition. Dismissed. .