Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 67 (DEL)

PRABHU DAYAL v. B. S. E. S. YAMUNA POWER LTD.

2008-01-22

SANJIV KHANNA

body2008
ORDER 1. The petitioner herein have filed this writ petition for grant of a fresh electricity connection. Respondent No. 1/ BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. has no objection to grant electricity connection as per Rules, but they want no objection certificate from the landlords. The landlords who are respondents 2 to 5 herein do not want to give no objection certificate to the petitioners. It appears that there is inter se dispute between the landlords and ~he tenants i.e. respondents 2 to 5 and the petitioners. 2. My attention is drawn to the order dated 13th May, 2005 passed in M(45) 10/05 titled as Prabhu Dayal v. Prakasho Devi. This petition was filed under Section 45(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In para 5 of the said order, it is recorded that the relationship of landlords and tenant amongst the respondents 2 to 5 and the petitioners is admitted and not disputed. On the question of electricity connection, stand taken by the respondents 2 to 5 was that there were arrears of Rs. 39,846.84 and the connection allotted to the landords is a domestic connection, whereas the petitioners were running shop and require a commercial connection. The Additional Rent Controller noted that on account of misuser, the electricity connection allotted to the landlords was likely to be disconnected. In these circumstances, it was held that the petitioners herein are not entitled to the electricity connection from the landlords. 3. In view of inter se dispute between the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5, it is apparent that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are not ready and willing to give no objection certificate. However, occupation and tenancy rights of the petitioners are not denied and have been accepted and admitted. The petitioners have right to enjoy and use the tenancy rights. The petitioners are entitled to electricity connection as their occupation cannot be regarded as unauthorised. It is admitted that no decree of eviction has been passed against the petitioners. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that respondent No.1 may process the application filed by the petitioners in accordance with law but without insisting on no objection certificate from the landlords. On the question of arrears, it will be open for respondent No.1 to decide the said question. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that respondent No.1 may process the application filed by the petitioners in accordance with law but without insisting on no objection certificate from the landlords. On the question of arrears, it will be open for respondent No.1 to decide the said question. It is clarified that as and when the petitioners vacate the premises, they will inform the respondent No.1 or the supplier Company. The petitioners will also be responsible for payment of the electricity consumption charges and it will be the duty of the petitioners to ensure that the landlords/ respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are not put to any inconvenience on account of grant of electricity connection. The petitioners will indemnify respondent Nos. 2 to 5 by filing an indemnity bond in this Court. 4. It is also clarified that this order will not be construed as an order by which this Court has expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and disputes amongst the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 and the right of the respondents 2 to 5 to file eviction proceedings against the petitioners. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti to the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Writ Petition disposed of.