Delhi District Court
Sh. Pintu Peter vs Sh. Michael And Ors on 30 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI A.K. AGRAWAL CIVIL JUDGE01 ( WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI..
C.S No. : 5/14
Sh. Pintu Peter
................Plaintiff
Vs.
Sh. Michael and Ors.
........... Defendants
ORDER
30.09.2014 Vide this order I shall dispose of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 filed on behalf of plaintiff.
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff states that he is residing at the property bearing no. WZ168, Block Z, Mandir Wali Gali, Shadipur, Patel Nagar, S.O. Central, Delhi08 since birth and same is in the name of his grandfather namely, Sh. Sohan Lal who also happens to be father of defendant no.1. The said property is undivided between sons of Sh. Sohan Lal i.e father of plaintiff and the defendant no.1. Thereafter some difference arose between Sh. Sohan Lal and his elder son and so Sh. Sohan Lal transferred the suit property in the name of plaintiff. It is further stated that in order to harass the plaintiff, defendant no.1 and 2 have disconnected the electricity and water supply in the plaintiff's portion of the suit property. Further the CS No.5/14 Pintu Peter v Michael & Ors. 1/5 defendants have not permitted the officials of defendant no.3 to inspect the property for installation of new electricity meter as per the request made by the plaintiff before defendant no.3. The electricity and water connection was disconnected by defendant no.1 and 2 in the month of November, 2012 and since then the plaintiff is residing in complete darkness without electricity and water supply. Hence the present suit was preferred before this court for restraining the defendant no.1 and 2 from causing any hindrance in installation of new electricity connection.
2. In the W.S, the defendant no.1 and 2 have stated that the plaintiff is merely a licensee in the suit property. The suit property has been purchased by defendant no.1 for the valuable consideration from one Sh. Raj Singh. It is further stated that the plaintiff has not produced any document in support of his claim of ownership in the suit property. It is also stated that the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary party. The other averments of plaint were also denied by defendant.
3. On the other hand, in their W.S defendant no.3 has stated that plaintiff had applied for new electricity connection on 07.10.2013 but it could not energized due to the reason that the meter box was found locked and there was dispute at the site between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 who caused hindrance and did not allow them to install the electricity connection. As per record of defendant no.3, the application of plaintiff for new connection has been suspended because of the above facts and the same was also CS No.5/14 Pintu Peter v Michael & Ors. 2/5 communicated to the plaintiff. It is stated that defendant no.3 is ready and willing to install the connection provided that there is no hindrance caused by defendant no.1 and 2 and plaintiff completes all the commercial formalities.
4. The present application U/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC has been moved by the plaintiff seeking injunction in his favour thereby restraining the defendant no.1 and 2 from creating any hinderance in installation of fresh/new electricity or water connection in the suit property till the final disposal of the suit.
5. In reply to the said application, defendant no.1 and 2 have reiterated the averments made in their W.S and prayed for dismissal of the application . On the other hand, reply was also filed by defendant no.3 wherein it is stated that there is a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 qua the suit property and defendant no.3 is ready and willing to install the new electricity connection in favour of plaintiff subject to condition that defendant no.1 and 2 do not create any hindrance in installation of the same and completes all commercial formalities regarding the same.
6. I have heard arguments advanced by the Ld. counsels for both the parties and carefully perused the record. The law is well settled regarding the grant of interim injunction. In order to succeed the applicant has to prove three basic ingredients :
1. existence of prima facie case.
CS No.5/14 Pintu Peter v Michael & Ors. 3/5
2. balance of convenience
3. irreparable injury
7. As far as prima facie case is concerned, it is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff is residing in the suit property. Whether he is residing as an owner as asserted by the plaintiff or merely as a licencee as alleged by the defendant, is beyond the purview of the present application. Electricity being a basic aminity, is required in every household for its fruitful enjoyment. It has been similarly held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Meena Chaudhary @ Dr. Meena P.N. Singh vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., VI (2013) SLT 203 that even an occupier of premises is entitled as of his own right, to supply of electricity in his own name, if the owner is not willing for supply of electricity in his name. So there is a prima facie case in plaintiff's favour as the electricity connection is disconnected in the suit property.
8. As far as balance of convenience is concerned, defendant no.1 and 2 won't have to suffer any hardship if the plaintiff is permitted electricity connection in the portion of suit property under plaintiff's occupation.
Moreover defendant no.3 has no objection in providing electricity connection to plaintiff if there is no hinderance caused to them and the plaintiff fulfills the legal requirements. So, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff.
9. As far as irreparable injury is concerned, it is an admitted fact that CS No.5/14 Pintu Peter v Michael & Ors. 4/5 it may take a long time in final disposal of the suit even extending beyond 23 years, as the case is at initial stages. The plaintiff cannot be compelled to live without electricity for such a long period. As observed above, electricity is a basic amenity and as such irreparable injury will be caused to the plaintiff, if the relief as prayed, is not granted to the plaintiff.
10. Accordingly, in view of my aforesaid observations, the present application U/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC stands allowed. The defendant no.1 and 2 or their associates, etc. are hereby restrained from causing any hinderance in installation of new electricity connection in the portion of the suit property under the occupation of the plaintiff. However the plaintiff is also restrained from using the installation of this temporary electricity connection as proof of his ownership of the suit property in any other proceedings untill the ownership of the same is finally decided by a competent court.
Nothing mentioned herein above shall tantamount to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Announced in the open court ( A.K. Agrawal) today on 30.09.2014 Civil Judge 01 ( West)/Delhi CS No.5/14 Pintu Peter v Michael & Ors. 5/5