Delhi District Court
Santosh Sharma vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd on 18 March, 2026
In The Court of Ms. Shuchi Laler,
District Judge-02, East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
RCA DJ No. 32/2024
CNR No. DLET01-004146-2024
In the matter of :-
Santosh Sharma,
W/o Late Sh. Ganga Dayal Sharma,
R/o H.No. A-303, Unit Flat No.2,
Floor Third, Gali No.15, Vijay Vihar,
Phase-I, Near Shri Ram Chowk,
Rohini, Delhi.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.,
Through Business Manager,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Pocket-II,
Delhi.
2. Vimla Sharma,
W/o Sh. Ram Chander Sharma,
R/o H.NO. 360-F, Mayur Vihar,
Phase-I, Pocket-II,
Delhi.
.....Respondents.
Date of Institution : 27.07.2024
Date of Reserving Order : 19.02.2026
Date of Decision : 18.03.2026
JUDGEMENT
1. By way of instant appeal, the appellant has challenged the Judgement/decree dated 04.05.2024, passed by Ld. Civil Judge, East District, KKD Courts, Delhi, whereby the Ld. Trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant. For the purpose of convenience, the parties in the present RCA DJ No. 32/2024 Santosh Sharma Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Page No.1 of 10 appeal shall be referred as per their ranks before Ld. Trial Court.
PLAINT:
2. The facts in brief as disclosed in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the owner of the flat N. 360F, Second Floor, PocketII, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) by virtue of registered conveyance deed, dated 29.08.2001, executed in her favour by DDA. After obtaining the physical possession of the suit property, the plaintiff obtained the water connection and electricity connection in her own name. It is alleged that the defendant No.2, who is sisterinlaw of the plaintiff, fraudulently got the electricity connection transferred in her own name on the basis of false GPA, Agreement to Sell and Receipt, dated 01.05.1996 from defendant No.1/BSES. The defendant No.2 had filed a suit for specific performance of alleged Agreement to Sell, dated 01.05.1996, but the same was rejected by Ld. ACJ/CCJ/ARC(East), on 05.06.2018. It is stated that the plaintiff made a complaint on 12.06.2018 to defendant No.1 for cancellation and disconnection of electricity supply, however, the BSES did not take any action.
WRITTEN STATEMENT:
3. Both defendants did not prefer to file any written statement in the instant suit. Vide order dated 23.08.2022, defendant No.2 was proceeded exparte. Ld. Counsel for RCA DJ No. 32/2024 Santosh Sharma Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Page No.2 of 10 plaintiff submitted on 01.12.2022 that he does not wish to file replication as no written statement was filed by defendant No.2.
ISSUES:
4. Ld. Trial Court vide order, dated 01.12.2022, framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunctions as prayed for in prayer clause 'A' of the plaint? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
(3) Relief.
EVIDENCE:
5. In support of her case, the plaintiff stepped into the witness box as PW1 and relied upon the following documents:
1. Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) : Copy of conveyance deed vide dated 29.08.2000.
2. Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) : Copy of allotment letter dated 25.01.1985.
3. Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) : Copy of certificate dated 21.01.1985.
4. Ex.PW1/5 (OSR) : Copy of electricity connection.
5. Ex.PW1/6 (OSR) : Copy of electricity connection.
6. Ex.PW1/7 (OSR) : Copy of bills.
RCA DJ No. 32/2024Santosh Sharma Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Page No.3 of 10
7. Ex.PW1/8 (OSR) : Original site plan issued by MCD.
8. Mark A : Copy of latest bill of supply of electricity in the month of May, 2018.
9. Mark B : Copy of order dated 05.06.2018.
10. Ex.PW1/11 (OSR) : Copy of newspaper.
11. Ex.PW1/12 (OSR) : Booking slips issued by two newspaper.
12. Mark C : Complaint to BSES.
13. Mark D : Complaint to SHO.
6. She was duly crossexamined by Ld. Counsels for defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff closed her evidence. The defendants have not preferred to examine any witness.
IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT:-
7. Vide judgement dated, 04.05.2024, Ld. Trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:-
8. The judgment and decree dt. 04.05.2024 has been challenged by the plaintiff on the following grounds:-
A. That Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that defendant No.2 had admitted the case of plaintiff and she never disputed the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property.
B. That the defendant No.2 cannot protect her possession of the suit property on the basis of Agreement to Sell, dated RCA DJ No. 32/2024 Santosh Sharma Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Page No.4 of 10 01.05.1996. The defendant No.2 is residing at the suit property as a licensee so a decree be passed against her.
C. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to grant mandatory injunction in respect of possession of the suit property while mandatory injunction is maintainable to grant possession of the suit property.
REPLY TO APPEAL:-
9. Ld. Counsels for respondents had submitted on 19.09.2024 that they do not wish to file any formal reply to the appeal and would address arguments straightaway.
ARGUMENTS:-
10. Ld. Counsel for appellant/plaintiff vehemently urged that Ld. Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit as defendant No.2 was merely a licensee in the suit property and her license being duly terminated, the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the suit property. He further submitted that a decree of possession can be passed in a suit for mandatory injunction and the Court is empowered to mould relief in the facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance was placed upon the judgements, titled as Sanjeev Kapoor Vs. Anil Kumar, 2016 (1) Civil Court Cases 568 (Delhi); Harish Chand Vs. Rameshwar Dayal, 2008 (3) Civil Court Cases 758 (P&H); S. Parthasarthy Vs. Durai, 2007 (1) Civil Court Cases 680 (Madras); and Rajender Bahadur Singh Vs. Prakashwati, 2023 (4) Civil Court Cases 620 (Rajasthan).
11. Ld. Counsel for respondent No.1/BSES submitted that the RCA DJ No. 32/2024 Santosh Sharma Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Page No.5 of 10 said connection was transferred in the name of respondent No.2/defendant No.2 on the basis of documents supplied by her and respondent No.1 acted bonafide as per Regulation 17 of Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Supply Court and Performance Standards) Regulations, 2017.
12. None appeared on behalf of defendant No.2/respondent No.2 to address arguments. Written submissions have been filed on behalf of appellant and respondent No.1. Same have been perused.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:-
13. Ld. Trial Court dealt with both the issues mentioned hereinabove together as they were interlinked and connected, and thus required a common discussion. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff has only examined herself as PW1 and in her cross-examination, she admitted that the suit property is in possession of defendant No.2 and she has filed a counter claim against defendant No.2. In the counter claim, the relief of declaration and possession has been sought by the plaintiff which is pending adjudication before Ld. SCJ/RC(East).
14. The limited relief which has been sought in the instant suit is that the defendants be directed to restore the electricity meter in the name of plaintiff. Admittedly, the electricity connection installed at the suit property is presently in the name of the defendant No.2. Restoration of electricity meter in the name of the plaintiff would be possible only if, the electricity connection in the name of defendant No.2 is RCA DJ No. 32/2024 Santosh Sharma Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Page No.6 of 10 disconnected. Ld. Trial Court rightly observed that electricity is the basic amenity of which a person cannot be denied. In Bani Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, W.P.(C) 9541/2023, dated 17.12.2025, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as under:-
"14. It has been held by Courts time and again that electricity is a basic necessity, and an integral part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, while holding that right to basic amenities, including, electricity is a fundamental right, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Anuj Kumar Agarwal versus Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Others", 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5087, held as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx
12. As of now, we are not considering the matter on facts or on the issue of jurisdiction of this Court. For such purpose, we would require the counter affidavits of the respondents on record. The right of a person for water and electricity connection cannot be underscored. It is apparent that the right to the basic amenities of life, would be a part of fundamental right of freedom to life and liberty. No citizen of the Country can be expected to live a life without dignity and devoid of basic necessities. Electricity and water, today, are essential to the very existence of the citizens.
xxx xxx xxx"
15. Further, while holding that as long as the petitioner is in possession of the property in question, he cannot be deprived of electricity, this Court in W.P. (C) 18953/2025, titled as "Shri Maiki Jain versus BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and Ors.", held as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx
10. It is to be noted that electricity is a basic necessity and an integral part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, as long as the petitioner is in possession of the property in question, he cannot be deprived of the same.
11. Needless to state that Courts in Catena of judgments have categorically held that the electricity is one of the Fundamental Rights for existence and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, no citizen can be expected to live a life devoid of basic necessities such as the electricity.
xxx xxx xxx"
15. Thus, electricity supply cannot be denied or disconnected of a person in possession merely because of pendency of a civil dispute nor the same can be used as a coercive tool for eviction. There is nothing wrong in the observation of Ld. Trial Court that the defendant No.2, is still in possession of the suit property, therefore, cannot be deprived of the electricity connection by way of present suit.
RCA DJ No. 32/2024Santosh Sharma Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Page No.7 of 10
16. The main thrust of argument of Ld. Counsel for appellant before this Court was that the Ld. Trial Court should have moulded the relief and should have granted possession to the plaintiff as an owner can seek possession from his licensee after termination of license by way of mandatory injunction. He also placed reliance on the judgements mentioned in para No.10 herein above.
17. Undoubtedly, it is a well settled proposition of law that after revocation of license, the licensee has no independent right to stay in the suit property and the owner can seek possession by instituting a suit for mandatory injunction simpliciter. However, in the present case, no prayer for recovery of possession was ever made, rather, prior to filing of the instant suit, a counter claim, filed by plaintiff, seeking possession was already pending before Ld.SCJ. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the prayer clause of the plaint, which reads as under:-
A. To pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants thereby directing to the defendant No.1 (BSES Yamuna Power Ltd) to restore the electric meter in the name of plaintiff, being the lawful legal registered owner of the flat bearing No. 360-F on second floor in pocket-11 situated at Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi-110091.
B. To pass a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant No.2 (Smt. Vimla Sharma) by restraining the said defendant from claiming any right, title, interest in respect of any portion of the flat of the plaintiff bearing No. 360-F on second floor in pocket-11 situated at Mayur Vihar Phase-1, Delhi-110091.
C. To pass a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant No.2 (Smt. Vimla Sharma), restraining the said defendant from RCA DJ No. 32/2024 Santosh Sharma Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Page No.8 of 10 entering upon, living or otherwise using any part of the possession of the flat/property bearing No. 360-F, Mayur Vihar Phase-1, Pocket-2.
D. To pass a decree for mandatory and permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.2 (Smt. Vimla Sharma) from causing interference in peaceful entrance/enjoyment of the said property by the plaintiff and her other family members. And defendant be restrained from causing hindrances and/or interferences to the egress and ingress of the plaintiff and her other family members, from entering upon the said property being a lawful registered owner of the suit property in question.
E. To pass the decree for mandatory and permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.2 (Smt. Vimla Sharma) from selling/alienating/disposing off/ transferring etc. of property of the plaintiff bearing No. 360-F, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Pocket-2 in favor of any other person/third party interest.
18. In prayer clause a) direction has been sought for restoration of electricity meter, b) pertains to a restraint order against any claim of right, title and interest in the suit property, and in c) & d) a restraint order against entrance/enjoyment of the suit property has been sought. When no prayer for recovery of possession was ever made, the Ld. Trial Court could not have travelled beyond the pleadings and granted a relief for which there was no prayer or pleadings thereby depriving the defendants of an opportunity to oppose or resist such a relief. It would have led to sheer miscarriage of justice. Though the Courts usually have a wide discretion in moulding reliefs, however, this power is exercised in the light of main relief and the court cannot, in complete ignorance, grant a new relief altogether which was never prayed at any stage by the plaintiff.
RCA DJ No. 32/2024Santosh Sharma Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Page No.9 of 10
19. Moreover, when the plaintiff has already sought the relief of possession in a previous suit/counter claim, he could not have re-agitated the same relief by way of instant suit. Ld. Trial Court has aptly held that the relief of permanent injunctions cannot be granted as the plaintiff is out of possession and if the plaintiff ultimately succeeds in recovering possession of the suit property, the plaintiff would be entitled to claim all the reliefs, including those in the present suit.
20. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussion, there is no infirmity, illegality or impropriety in the judgement/decree dated 04.05.2024, passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Present appeal is without any merits and stands dismissed. No order as to cost.
21. Decree sheet be prepared, accordingly.
22. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. TCR be returned along with a copy of this order.
Announced in the open
Court on 18.03.206 (Shuchi Laler)
District Judge-02, East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
RCA DJ No. 32/2024
Santosh Sharma Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Page No.10 of 10