Delhi District Court
Shri Sant Dayal vs Shri Sita Ram on 15 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT KARAN SINGH, CIVIL JUDGE-
01 (WEST), TIS HAZ COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No. 968/18
CNR DLWT 030018532018
Date of Institution : 07.08.2018
Date of reservation of judgment : 07.11.2022
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 15.11.2022
Shri Sant Dayal
S/o Shri Bhola Ram
R/o House No. 51, Ground Floor
Gali No. 13, Nai Basti
Anand Parbat, New Delhi-110005 .................Plaintiff
vs
1. Shri Sita Ram
S/o Late Sh. Ram Saran
R/o House No. 51, Ground Floor
Gali No. 13, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat
New Delhi-110005
2. The Commercial/Business Manager
BSES Yamuna Power Limited
(District Central), Patel Nagar
New Delhi-110008 ..............Defendants
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated the facts of the present case as per plaint are that the plaintiff is the lawful tenant and is in possession of one room situated at Ground Floor at property bearing No. 51, Ground Floor, Gali No. 13, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi-110005 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). It is pleaded that the plaintiff was CS SCJ No. 968/18 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram & Anr. 1/10 induced as a tenant in the suit property since 48 years @ Rs. 60/- per month excluding other charges before by the father of the defendant named Ram Sharan and after his death his wife Smt. Bhagwani Devi used to collect the rent against the receipt. It is pleaded that at the time of inception of tenant there was no facility of the electricity and water in the premises in question and due to this reason the facility of the electricity and water has not been provided by father and mother of the defendant. It is pleaded that after the death of Smt. Bhawani Devi, defendant started collecting the rent from the plaintiff but she never issued any rent receipt despite of so many requests made by the plaintiff. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is in continuous physical possession of the tenanted room and living therein with his son. It is pleaded that in the year 2009 the defendant started harassing the plaintiff on passing the threat of forcible dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit property upon which the plaintiff has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction bearing No. 178/09 titled as "Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram" against the defendant which was decided by the then civil judge Ms. Vrinda Kumari, vide order dated 14.12.2009 restraining the defendant from forcibly dispossession of the plaintiff without due process of law, subject to the condition that the plaintiff shall pay/deposit of arrear of rent to the tune of Rs. 60/- per month. It is pleaded that in the year 2009 the area where the suit property is situated has been electrified and the supply of the water also provided by the concerned departments, upon which the defendant has already availed the facility of the electricity in their premises. It is pleaded that the plaintiff has requested so many times to provide the amenity of the electricity which is very much necessary now a days for his family, but the defendants refused to do so and started pressurizing the plaintiff to CS SCJ No. 968/18 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram & Anr. 2/10 vacate his tenanted premises. It is pleaded that in the month of June, 2011 the plaintiff applied for a new electricity connection in his name at the suit property at his own cost with the defendant no.2. It is pleaded that the official of the defendant no. 2 carried out the inspection but after few days rejected the application vide their letter dated 15.07.2011 on the ground DISPUTE CASE AS PER JE. It is pleaded that the plaintiff has filed a petition u/s 45 D.R.C Act against the defendant for the facility of the electricity and water which is pending before Ld.ARC, Delhi in which the defendant has taken an objection that the Ld. ARC has got no jurisdiction to try and to give the relief to the plaintiff.
2. It is pleaded that the plaintiff has requested so many times to the defendant to provide NOC to him so that he may be able to got installed the electricity meter in his name from the defendant no. 2 but all in vain. Hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff.
3. By virtue of present suit, the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs :
(1) Decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1, thereby restraining the defendant no. 1, his associates, legal heirs, representatives, assignees, servants etc. not to put obstacle into installation of new electricity connection/meter in the name of the plaintiff at his own cost at the suit property i.e. House No. 51, Ground Floor, Gali No. 13, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi-110005.
(2) Decree for mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 2, thereby directing the defendant no. 2 to install immediately new connection CS SCJ No. 968/18 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram & Anr. 3/10 in the name of the plaintiff in his tenanted room at the suit property bearing No. 51, Ground floor, Gali No. 13, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi-110005.
(3) Any other relief.
4. Vide order dated 26.07.2022 it was ordered that the Order dated 09.09.2019 is modified to the extent that W.S of defendant no.1 is not taken on record.
5. Written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant No.1 wherein it is stated that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in accordance with provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC with heavy cost as no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of plaintiff. It is further stated that the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in as much as the present suit is nothing but an abuse of process of law and has been filed only to harass the defendant. It is alleged that the plaintiff is tenant @Rs 600/- p.m as exclusive of all other charges. The suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction is false one and the same has been filed to harass the defendant no.1 when the defendant no. 1 demanded the rent which was not paid by him for the last so many months. It is alleged that the plaintiff is having no right to ask the defendant no.1 to provide the amenities of water and electricity to him which were never provided to him, thus the present case is not maintainable. It is stated that the defendant no. 1 is not under any obligation to provide any further amenity to the plaintiff or allowed him to avail the same. It is submitted that the present plaint is liable to dismissed as at the time of inception of the electricity neither the electricity or the water amenity was provided to the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot demand the services from the CS SCJ No. 968/18 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram & Anr. 4/10 defendant which was not ever provided to him at the time of inception of the property. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled for the release of permanent injunction as the defendant no. 1 never promised or assured the defendants to provide the electricity and water facility. It is further admitted by the plaintiff that he was never in use of the electricity in the suit property, therefore, he is not entitled for the electricity. It is submitted that the plaintiff also filed a case u/s 45 of DRC Act along with application u/s 45 (3) of DRC Act. The said application u/s 45(3) of DRC Act was dismissed by the Ld. ARC on 07.05.2012. It is further submitted that after conclusion of the evidence of both the parties in that DRC case the plaintiff withdrawn the said case at the time of hearing of final arguments. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed as he himself withdrawn his DRC petition u/s 45 DRC Act without any reasonable relief. It is submitted that the plaintiff is defaulter in making the rent @ Rs. 600/- p.m. Prayer is made for dismissal of suit.
6. Written statement filed on behalf of the defendant no. 2 stating that the plaintiff vide his request no. 8000099402 dated 15.06.2011 applied for sanction of new electricity connection, accordingly, the officials of defendant visited the suit premises for verification and it was reported that there is dispute between the parties and one Sita Ram has also objected vide his letter dated 29.06.2011 for installation of new electricity connection in favour of the plaintiff without his NOC. Accordingly, vide letter dated 05.07.2011, the defendant no.2 informed the plaintiff about the rejection of his request due to dispute at site. Admittedly at the relevant time in the year 2011 the defendant no.1 being the landlord objected for installation of new CS SCJ No. 968/18 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram & Anr. 5/10 electricity connection by not issuing NOC in favour of the plaintiff. At the relevant time in 2011 DERC Regulations 2007 were applicable and one of the requirements for sanction of new electricity connection was submission of NOC from the landlord and completion of commercial formalities including clearance of outstanding dues against the premises, which the plaintiff has failed to comply in the year 2011. It is submitted that the suit of the plaintiff suffers from delay and latches as on the basis of cause of action arose in 2011 against the defendant no.2, the present suit of mandatory injunction has been filed on 01.08.2018 against the defendant no.2 seeking direction to install the new electricity connection. It is submitted that there is limitation of 3 years for seeking the relief of mandatory injunction as such the relief of mandatory injunction claimed against the answering defendant on the basis of cause of action accrued in 2011, is hopelessly time barred. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not applied for sanction of new electricity connection in his favour not completed the commercial formalities as per DERC Regulation, 2017, as such the suit of the plaintiff against the answering defendant is premature. In the plaint it is submitted that for enjoying the amenity of electricity the plaintiff has to first apply for sanction of electricity connection with the answering defendant, therefore, for this reason, the plaintiff cannot blame that he is facing difficulties and hardship without the facility of electricity. Even otherwise, the plaintiff in 2011 applied for new electricity connection and due to dispute at site, his request was rejected vide letter dated 05.07.2011 and the defendant no. 1 also objected for installation of new electricity connection in favour of plaintiff without his NOC, but the plaintiff has not taken any action in this regard since 2011, therefore, now after lapse of more than 7 years, he cannot allege that he is CS SCJ No. 968/18 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram & Anr. 6/10 suffering due to non facility of electricity. It is submitted that as per DERC Regulation 2017 in case the applicant is a tenant, he is required to file (I) lease agreement along with undertaking that the same has been signed by the owner of his AR, (ii) latest rent receipt not earlier than 3 months along with undertaking that the receipts have been signed by the owner of his AR, (iii) ID proof and also to pay the outstanding dues, if any, against the premises. In the presence facts of the case the plaintiff has neither applied nor completed the commercial formalities for installation of new electricity connection. Prayer is made for dismissal of suit.
7. Vide Order dated 09.09.2019, following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP.
3. Relief.
8. In order to prove his case plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and has tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit. Same is Ex. PW 1/A and has relied upon the following documents :
1. Site plan Ex. PW 1/12. Photo copy of Judgement dated 14.12.09 Mark A
3. Photo copy of Statement of defendant dated 14.12.09 Mark B
4. Photo copy of acknowledgment of application Mark C
5. Letter of rejection of application Mark D
9. PW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of defendants.
CS SCJ No. 968/18 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram & Anr. 7/10 Thereafter vide statement made by plaintiff on 15.02.2020 PE was closed and the matter was listed for defendant evidence.
10. In defendant evidence defendant no.2 has examined Sh. Deepak Singh Verma, Sernior Manager, AMPS District Patel Nagar, BSES as D2W1 and has tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit i.e. D2W1/A. D2W1 has relied upon the following documents :
(1) Copy of letter dated 29.06.2011 Ex. D2W1/1 (OSR) (2) Copy of rejection letter dated 05.07.2011 Mark X
11. D2W1 has been cross-examined on behalf of plaintiff. Thereafter vide statement made by counsel for defendant no.2, DE was closed on 02.03.2022 and the matter was listed for final arguments.
12. I have heard final arguments and perused the record carefully.
13. My issuewise findings are as under :
ISSUE No.1 AND 21. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP.
Both the issues are taken up together.
14. Even though the WS of the defendant was not taken on record, the defendant No. 1 has admitted in his W.S. that plaintiff is tenant in the suit premises. Counsel for the defendant No. 1, has argued that plaintiff is a regular defaulter in payment of rent. It is further argued that no electricity connection was provided to the plaintiff at the CS SCJ No. 968/18 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram & Anr. 8/10 inception of the tenancy. It is further argued that there was no agreement to provide electricity connection to the plaintiff at the suit premises.
15. Defendant No. 2 has examined Sh. Deepak Singh Verma as D2W1. D2W1 has produced a letter dated 29.06.2011 sent by defendant no 1 to defendant 2 telling BSES not to install electricity connection in favour of plaintiff without his NOC. D2W1 also filed Mark X. Mark X gives two reasons for rejection of application for electricity connection, namely, first, ownership dispute and second, dues found at the site. The suit of the plaintiff is not barred by limitation as non-installation of electricity meter is a continuing wrong. There was obligation upon defendants, imposed by law, to provide electricity to occupier-tenant.
16. In Dilip through LRs. Vs Satish & Others, SLP(crl.) No. 8917 of 2019, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "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."
17. In view of the above, the defendant No. 2 cannot deny the installation of electricity connection to the plaintiff on the ground that no NOC has been given by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. As far as the issue of non-payment of rent is concerned, the defendant No. 1 is at liberty to take appropriate legal action against the plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed certain documents from Mark A to Mark D, these documents are not sufficiently proved by the plaintiff.
18. It is to be noted that relief of permanent injunction is permanent in nature. This court cannot restrain defendant no 1 to never CS SCJ No. 968/18 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram & Anr. 9/10 ever put any obstacle against the plaintiff for installation of electricity connection for indefinite period. Plaintiff appears to be a statutory tenant protected under Delhi Rent Control Act. Plaintiff is entitled to electricity so long as he is a tenant of the defendant no 1.
Both the issues are decided in favour of plaintiff to the extent below.
19. RELIEF In view of aforementioned findings and observations, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and plaintiff is entitled to following reliefs:
a) Defendant no 1, his associates, legal heirs, representatives, assignees, servants etc are directed not to put obstacle in installation of new electricity connection in the name of plaintiff at his own cost at the property no. 51, Ground Floor, Gali No. 13, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi-110005 (more specifically shown in Red Colour in the site plan Ex PW 1/1) till the plaintiff is a tenant of the defendant no 1.
b) Defendant no 2, by way of mandatory injunction, is directed to install new electricity connection in the name of plaintiff in his tenanted room at property no. 51, Ground Floor, Gali No. 13, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi-110005 (more specifically shown in Red Colour in the site plan Ex PW 1/1) till the plaintiff is a tenant of the defendant no 1.
No order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open court (Ankit Karan Singh)
today i.e. on 15.11.2022 Civil Judge-01(West)/Delhi
CS SCJ No. 968/18 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram & Anr. 10/10