Delhi District Court
Sh. Hari Mohan vs Sh. S.K. Marwaha on 24 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
Misc. ARC NO. 29774/2016
Sh. Hari Mohan
S/o Sh. Delu Ram Mistri
R/o WZ-154-A, First Floor
Subzi Market, Near Bus Stand
Madipur
New Delhi. .... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. S.K. Marwaha
S/o Late Sh. Mangal Sen Marwaha
R/o R-32, Second,
South Extension, Part-II,
New Delhi.
2. Sh. D.K. Marwaha
S/o Late Sh. Mangal Sen Marwaha
R/o 194, Vivek Vihar, Ambla City,
Haryana
3. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Through its C.E.O.,
Nehru Place,
New Delhi. ... Respondents
Date of Filing : 08.06.2016
Date of Judgment : 24.12.2019
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is claiming to be a tenant under the respondent No. 1 and 2 in respect of entire Misc. ARC No. 29774/16 Hari Mohan Vs S.K. Marwaha Page 1 / 9 1st floor of property No. WZ-154, Subzi Market, near bus stand Madipur, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises') at a monthly rent of Rs.1700/- per month including electricity and water charges.
2. The claim of the petitioner is that the tenanted premises was taken on rent by the petitioner from Sh. Narender Kumar Marwaha through rent agreement executed on 07.12.2009 between Sh. Narender Kumar Marwaha and petitioner. That tenancy was extended from time to time by Sh. Narender Kumar Marwaha who expired on 30.10.2013 and respondent No. 1 and 2 being real brothers are claiming to be legal heirs of Sh. Narender Kumar Marwaha. That the petitioner was using the electricity through meter installed on the ground floor of the tenanted premises at the instruction of Sh. Narender Kumar Marwaha. That after his death, the occupant of the ground floor started harassing the petitioner by cutting off the electricity supply despite payment of electricity charges by petitioner. That petitioner applied for a separate electricity connection in his name but the respondent no. 3 have not entertained the application for installation separate meter.
It is also averred by the petitioner that on 01.06.2016, the occupant of the ground floor at the instance of the respondent no. 1 & 2 have disconnected the electricity supply of the tenanted premises of the petitioner at first floor. That the petitioner requested the respondent no. 1 & 2 to give NOC but the respondent no. 1 and 2 flatly refused to the same. That the petitioner is suffering from paralytic attack.
It is lastly prayed by the petitioner that respondents no. 1 & 2 Misc. ARC No. 29774/16 Hari Mohan Vs S.K. Marwaha Page 2 / 9 may be directed to issue No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner so that the petitioner may be able to get a new domestic connection in the said tenanted premises and in case the respondent no. 1 & 2 are failed to give the NOC, then the necessary directions may be issued to the electricity authority concerned i.e. respondent no. 3 BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., to sanction and install a new domestic electricity connection in the name of the petitioner.
3. W.S. filed by respondents no. 1 & 2 in which respondents have inter-alia contended that the ejectment order has been passed against the petitioner on 21.02.2012 and revision petition No. 267 of 2012 has also been dismissed on 17.09.2015. That the petitioner is guilty of non payment of rent since 01.11.2009. That the petitioner is not a tenant on date in view of the ejectment order dated 21.02.2012. That no such alleged agreement has been executed by Sh. Narinder Kr. Marwaha and that the tenanted premises have been let out to the petitioner @ Rs. 1700/- per month and later on the rent was increased to Rs. 1800/- per month.
It is also stated that it is correct that on 03.10.2013, Sh. Narinder Kr. Marwah had expired and is succeeded by his two surviving brothers as the only legal heirs of Sh. Narinder Kr. Marwaha. That the petitioner was supplied electricity from a separate meter and due to non payment of electricity charges by the petitioner, the electricity meter has been removed by the department as is reliably learnt by the respondents. That the petitioner has not disclosed the reasons for disconnecting the supply.
It is also submitted by the respondents that the answering respondents neither met any official of respondent No. 3 nor Misc. ARC No. 29774/16 Hari Mohan Vs S.K. Marwaha Page 3 / 9 respondent no. 3 contacted the answering respondents. That the answering respondents have no connection with the occupant of ground floor who is separate entity. That the electricity was not supplied through the connection installed at the ground floor but as per knowledge of the answering respondents a separate meter was installed but the same was removed due to non payment of electricity bill as well as rent of tenanted premises.
It is lastly prayed by the respondents no. 1 & 2 that the illegal petition of the petitioner may be ordered to be dismissed with costs.
4. In its W.S. filed by respondent NO. 3 inter-alia submits that in the petition U/Sec. 45 of D.R.C. Act, this court has jurisdiction to direct to restore the existing connection to the landlord, as the answering respondents have no relationship with the petitioner as such, the court has no jurisdiction to give direction to the answering respondents to provide electricity connection and the answering respondent is neither providing any electricity to the petitioner nor has disconnected the same. That the petitioner has to apply for a new connection as per DERC guidelines/rules, the same will be considered only after receiving the request/application from the petitioner. Furthermore, in case of new connection as prayed by the petitioner, the petitioner has to first apply for a new connection and to complete the commercial formalities and also to give NOC from the landlords as per Annexure-I of Delhi Electric Supply Code 2007. Since the petitioner has neither applied for new connection nor submitted any NOC from the landlords, therefore, the application of the petitioner is premature and is not maintainable.
Misc. ARC No. 29774/16 Hari Mohan Vs S.K. Marwaha Page 4 / 95. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
6. It is pertinent to mention that notice of the present petition U/Sec. 45 D.R.C. Act issued to all the respondents were served and the respondents no. 1 & 2 filed the W.S. on 13.07.2016 and respondent no. 3/BSES also filed its W.S. on the same date i.e. 13.07.2016. Perusal of record shows that respondents no. 1 & 2 were proceeded ex-parte on 26.08.2019, as they were not appearing before the court and none was appearing on their behalf. It is also pertinent to mention that on 26.08.2019, it was submitted by ld. Counsel for respondents that he has no objection in case electricity connection is provided to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 20.11.2019, PW-1/petitioner Sh. Hari Mohan tendered his evidence by way of affidavit but no respondent cross examined him despite opportunity given by this court.
Perusal of record shows that the petitioner has relied upon a number of documents to prove his case. Moreover, no evidence at all has been led by any of the respondents despite opportunity given by this court.
7. Perusal of record shows that in the present petition U/Sec. 45 of the D.R.C. Act, the petitioner has claimed to be a tenant under Sh. Narender Kumar Marwah and stated that aforementioned Sh. Narender Kr. Marwah has already expired in the year 2013 leaving behind two real brothers namely Sh. S.K. Marwah and Sh. D.K. Marwah as his LRs.
On the other hand, the respondent no. 1 & 2 have not denied Misc. ARC No. 29774/16 Hari Mohan Vs S.K. Marwaha Page 5 / 9 the fact of being LRs of Sh. Narender Kr. Marwah. Moreover, it is also admitted by the respondents no. 1 & 2 that petitioner is their tenant in the tenanted premises.
Perusal of record clearly shows that there exists a relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. Moreover, the petitioner has also claimed that the rate of rent is Rs. 1700/- per month including electricity and water charges. On the other hand, respondents no. 1 & 2 have also admitted that the tenanted premises was let out to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1700/- per month which was increased to Rs .1800/- per month.
As such, it is also undisputed that this court has jurisdiction to deal with the present petition U/Sec. 45 of D.R.C. Act. As far as written statement of respondent no. 3 is concerned, respondent no. 3 itself has inter-alia stated that it is the dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 & 2 and respondent no. 3 has no concern with the present petition. Moreover, during the proceedings also, as mentioned earlier, respondent no. 3 submitted that the respondent no. 3 does not have any objection in case the fresh connection is allotted to the petitioner or electricity connection is restored provided that the petitioner comply with the directions and guidelines issued by DERC.
8. Perusal of record shows that evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the petitioner but none of the respondents cross examined the petitioner, due to which the evidence of the petitioner has been remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Moreover, no evidence has been led by any of the respondents.
It is expedient to reproduce Section 45 of D.R.C. Act, which is Misc. ARC No. 29774/16 Hari Mohan Vs S.K. Marwaha Page 6 / 9 as under:-
"45. Cutting off or withholding essential supply or service (1). no landlord either himself or through any person purporting to act on his behalf shall without just and sufficient cause cut off or withhold any essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the premises let to him.
(2). If a landlord contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1), the tenant may make an application to the Controller complaining of such contravention.
(3). If the Controller is satisfied that essential supply or service was cut off or withheld by the landlord with a view to compel the tenant to vacate the premises or to pay any enhanced rent, the Controller may pass an order directing the landlord to restore the amenities immediately, pending the inquiry referred to in sub-section Explanation- An interim order may be passed under this sub-section without giving any notice to the landlord.
(4). If the Controller on inquiry finds that the essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect to the premises was cut off or withheld by the landlord without just and sufficient cause, he shall make an order directing the landlord to restore such supply of service.
(5). the Controller may in his discretion direct that compensation not exceeding Fifty Rupees-
(a). Be paid to the landlord by the tenant, if the application under sub-section (2) was made frivolously or vaxaciously;
(b). Be paid to the tenant by the landlord, if the landlord had cut off or withheld the supply or service without just and sufficient cause.
Explanation-(I). In this section, "Essential supply or service" includes supply of water, electricity, lights in passages and on staircases, conservancy and sanitary services.
Explanation- (II). For the purposes of this Section, withholding any essential supply or Misc. ARC No. 29774/16 Hari Mohan Vs S.K. Marwaha Page 7 / 9 service shall include acts or omissions attributable to the landlords on account of which the essential supply or service is cut off by the Local Authority or any order Competent Authority."
9. As such, perusal of record shows that the petitioner has been able to satisfy all the ingredients of Sec. 45 of D.R.C. Act. Moreover, it is undisputed fact that there exists a relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. Although, it is claimed by respondents no. 1 & 2 that the litigations are pending before the Courts for eviction of petitioner. But, record clearly shows that the petitioner is still in possession of the tenanted premises and the electricity being essential amenity, everyone requires it till he vacates the premises and in my view, the tenant should not be deprived of such amenity in the interest of justice. However, the landlords/respondents are always at liberty to take the recourse of legal remedies for getting the tenanted premises vacated from the petitioner.
10. As such, lastly it is directed that the electricity be restored in the tenanted premises or fresh electricity connection be installed by the respondent no. 3 after compliance of all the formalities and guidelines as required by respondent no. 3 and DERC. Respondents no. 1 & 2 are directed to give 'No Objection Certificate' within 15 days from today. In case respondents no. 1 & 2 do not issue NOC within the stipulated period of 15 day, respondent no. 3 is directed to restore the electricity connection or install the new electricity meter in the name of petitioner at his expenses after complying with the legal procedure and documentation etc. Copy of this judgment be served to the respondents no. 1 & 2 Misc. ARC No. 29774/16 Hari Mohan Vs S.K. Marwaha Page 8 / 9 through Process Server and in case of refusal, non availability, locked, they be served through affixation.
11. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
on 24th December, 2019 AJAY by AJAY NAGAR
Date:
(This judgment contains 09 pages)
NAGAR 2019.12.24
17:06:48 +0530
(AJAY NAGAR)
Additional Rent Controller (West)
Delhi.
Misc. ARC No. 29774/16 Hari Mohan Vs S.K. Marwaha Page 9 / 9