Allahabad High Court
Daya Nand Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 22 March, 2023
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 395 of 2022 Appellant :- Daya Nand Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Krishna Mishra,Ajay Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava,Pankaj Kumar Tyagi,Ramendra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
In view of the order dated 03.09.2022 passed by this Court, office is directed to remove the defect and allot regular number to the appeal.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the contempt court directing the electricity department and police officials of Police Station Sector-24, NOIDA Gautambudh Nagar to immediately provide electricity connection to the contempt applicant within a period of 72 hours from the date of the order. The contempt applicant claims to be the tenant of the premises in question and with the said claim, he filed Writ C no.17882 of 2022 (Amit Kumar vs State of U.P and others) challenging the communication dated 30.05.2022 issued by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division-VII, 33/11 KV sub station, Sector 62 C, NOIDA, whereby he was asked to provide the consent of the landlord for granting electricity connection.
On submission of the learned counsel that the landlord of the premises has refused to give consent and objected for grant of electricity connection in the name of the petitioner, liberty was granted to the petitioner to comply with the condition of Clause 4.4 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 in furnishing the indemnity bond and fulfil all other necessary formalities subject to which the concerned authority was required to pass appropriate order in the matter of granting electricity connection in the name of the petitioner, ignoring the connection in the name of the landlord.
The contention of the appellant who is the landlord, is that the direction issued by this Court has wrongly been interpreted by the contempt court by issuing positive direction for grant of electricity connection without determining the claim of the contempt applicant for such relief.
There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant herein is owner/landlord of the premise in question. It is demonstrated before us that a rent agreement dated 14.07.2021 had been executed for the basement of the premise in question in favour of one M/s Fitness 22 Gym through its proprietor Mr. Abhijeet Tanwar s/o Sh. Surendra Singh R/o R-33, Sector-12, NOIDA-201301 District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. The said agreement was for a period of 11 months w.e.f 16.06.2021 which expired on 15.05.2022.
It is demonstrated before us that a notice dated 20.04.2022 had been given by the appellant to M/s Fitness 22 Gym through its proprietor Abhijeet Tanwar, respondent no.7 herein namely Amit Kumar s/o Narendra Kumar to vacate the premise in question namely the basement in accordance with the terms and condition of the rent agreement or else the damages was required to be paid. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the person in whose occupation, the premise in question was under the rent agreement, had delivered physical possession of the same to the landlord/appellant herein on 16.06.2022. However, the respondent no.7 has unauthorisedly occupied the premises-in-question. He has illegally occupied the same and with a view to continue in unauthorised occupation, application was moved before the electricity department for grant of electricity connection in his name.
It further transpired that the respondent no.7 herein had filed an original suit no.112 of 2022 seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellant herein which has been dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.
An SCC suit no.612 of 2022 has been filed by the appellant herein before the Court, wherein respondent no.7 and M/s Fitness 22 Gym through its proprietor Abhijeet Singh have been impleaded as opposite parties.
An interim injunction order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the District Judge Gautambudh Nagar in Civil Appeal no.61 of 2022 filed by the respondent no.7 herein has been placed before us by the counsel appearing in his behalf to assert that the respondent no.7 herein has been granted protection by the Civil Court and the direction has been issued not to evict him from the tenanted premises.
It is an admitted fact of the matter that the SCC suit and the civil appeal arising out of original suit for injunction are pending before the competent court of law. This fact of the matter, it seems had not been brought before the writ court at the time of passing of the order dated 29.06.2022, as a result of which the contempt proceedings were initiated by respondent no.7.
Taking note of the above facts, we are of the considered opinion that a person of whose possession of the premises in question is not settled or termed as illegal, cannot claim electricity connection independent to the proceedings initiated by him.
The landlord cannot be said to be in error in refusing to give consent for grant of separate electricity connection in the name of respondent no.7.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.7 lastly submits that the landlord had taken security as an advance for an amount of Rs.10 lacs and it has not been refunded so far and as such the respondent no.7 cannot be evicted from the premise in question.
Be that as it may, the issue raised herein can very well be addressed by the competent court namely the SCC Court or the civil court.
It is open for the respondent no.7 to claim necessary relief in the pending appeal filed by him arising out of the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction filed against the appellant.
While setting side the directions issued by the contempt court in the order dated 29.08.2022 to the electricity department to grant electricity connection to respondent no.7 within 72 hours, we relegate the respondent no.7 to approach the civil court for redressal of his grievances.
It goes without saying that, in case, respondent no.7 seeks appropriate relief before the civil court, the order passed in the present appeal or the writ petition filed by him shall not come in his way.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.3.2023 Harshita