< Back
High Courts
High Courts
Tenant Facing An Eviction Decree Not Entitled To Obtain Electricity Connection: Allahabad HC
|17 March 2024 3:00 PM GMT
The Allahabad High Court observed that a tenant who is facing eviction decree is not entitled to obtain electricity connection.
The Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla after going through the definition of “occupier” as given under the U.P. Electricity Code, 2005 observed, “Plainly before a person (including a tenant) may claim to be an 'occupier' he must be seen to be a person authorised to occupy the premises. By way of example, it may be noted that a trespasser or a person declared to be an unauthorised occupant may not claim any right to occupy the premises over which he may have been declared to be trespasser or an unauthorised occupant.”
In the present case, the respondent/landlord was seeking to evict the petitioners. An injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners restraining the respondent from evicting the petitioner after they approached the Court. Respondent's suit seeking eviction was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, the respondent was seeking execution of the decree whereas the petitioners were seeking recall of the same. Meanwhile, on application by the landlord, Electricity Distribution Corporation disconnected the connection.
The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition, seeking direction to the respondent to provide electricity connection.
It was argued by the Counsel for the Petitioner, Advocate Ashish Kumar Srivastava that Petitioners are “occupier” of the said premises.
The Court placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dilip (Dead) through LRS. Vs. Satish and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 570, where SC observed, “It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question."
The division bench observed, “it needs no reiteration that a tenant may not be deprived of the electricity connection for reason of dispute with the landlord. To that extent, the tenant may not be left at the mercy of the landlord to avail that basic amenity. However, the decision of the Supreme Court in Dilip (supra) does not lay down a proposition-electricity connection must be granted in favour of a tenant irrespective of all other facts.”
The Court noted that in Anand Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023(3) ADJ 668 (DB), it was observed, “Section 43 of the Act enjoins a duty upon the licensee not only to supply electrical energy on an application in this behalf not only by a owner of a premises but also a occupier which has been defined under the Code 2005 to include any authorized person in occupation of the premises. A tenant would be an authorized person in occupation of a premises.”
The Court further relied on the decision in the Anand Kumar case which dealt with the provision of the U.P. Electricity Code, 2005 and observed, “Qua the rights of the tenant and the obligations of the distribution company it was found that a tenant being 'occupier' may remain entitled to apply for connection on fulfilment of terms and conditions, mainly, upon issuance of indemnity bond.”
However, as per the Court the decision in the Anand Kumar case is not exactly applicable to the present case as the right of a tenant to electricity connection springs from his inclusion in the term 'occupier' as defined under Section 2 (oo) of the Code, 2005.
The Court noted that the petitioners were indeed admitted to tenancy over the disputed premises, as per the Court it was equally true that as of date they face a decree of eviction. However, according to the Court, it cannot recognise the present petitioners as persons "authorised" to occupy the premises in dispute in the absence of any stay order operating against the eviction decree.
Consequently, as per the Court, since the eviction order was passed against the Petitioner and execution proceedings are pending without any stay on the eviction order it cannot pass the Writ of mandamus for grant of electricity connection.
The Court disposed of the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Ashok Kumar Sharma v. The State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:31947-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Ashish Kumar Srivastava
Respondent: C.S.C. Udit Chandra