Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2384 (ALL)

Kanti v. Chairman, U. P. Power Corporation Ltd.

2024-11-22

RAJAN ROY, SHREE PRAKASH SINGH

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri Karan Agarwal, Advocate, holding brief of Ms. Aprajita Bansal, counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to 5 and Sri Sahbaj Salam, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar, counsel appearing for the opposite no. 6, landlord. 2. Counsel for the opposite party no. 6 says that the petitioner is her landlord, however, she is not paying the rent for quite some time. 3. Counsel for the petitioner says that this is incorrect and the petitioner is paying rent. He says that, in any case, if there is any such dispute, the remedy lies elsewhere, and it cannot be a ground for denying electricity connection to the petitioner, once the relationship of landlord and tenant is accepted. 4. He invites our attention to para no. 14 of the Counter Affidavit of opposite party no. 6, wherein also this relationship has been admitted. 5. At this stage, counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to 5 says that an indemnity bond would be required from the petitioner as the N.O.C. has not been given by the landlord, though the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. 6. We are also of the view that the petitioner should submit indemnity bond on the prescribed proforma, unless it has already been submitted. 7. At this stage, counsel for the Electricity Corporation says that the indemnity bond at page no. 35 of the writ petition is not on the prescribed proforma. 8. Be that as it may, as and when such indemnity bond is submitted, the Electricity Corporation shall proceed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner for grant of electricity connection, if there is no legal impediment to grant the same, in accordance with law, at the earliest, say within three weeks from today. 9. This order is being passed without the prejudice to the rights of the landlord viz-a-viz, the petitioner-tenant, whether it be in the matter of rent or eviction etc. This order itself cannot confer any right upon the petitioner with regard to the tenanted premises viz-a-viz the landlord or owner. 10. The writ petition is disposed of.