Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Smt. Beena vs Ravinder Mohan on 16 April, 2012

  In the Court of Dr. Rakesh Kumar: Additional Rent Controller of 
         East Delhi District at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

Application No. M(45)­1/12
Unique I.D. No.02402C0024392012

In the matter of :­
Smt. Beena
W/o Ramesh Kumar,
R/o 1/3, First Floor, Rani Garden,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi­110031.                              .....Applicant

                                    Versus

Ravinder Mohan
S/o Kuldeep Chand,
R/o 16/38, Geeta Colony,
Delhi­110031.                                             .....Respondent

ORDER

1. This order shall decide an application under section 45 (4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act') made on behalf of the applicant for providing of essential supply of electricity and water.

2. In the present application, it is stated that applicant is a tenant in respect of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.400/­; that the electricity and water charges of Rs.75/­ per month were M(45)-1/12 Page 1 of 5 being charged by the respondent excluding the rent; that the applicant in order to get the tenanted premises vacated from the respondent cut off/withheld the electricity and water supply which are necessary amenities of a citizen, just to compel the petitioner to get the premises vacated; that the contents of the said application may kindly be read as part and parcel of this application which is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity; that the essential supply of electricity and water has provided by the respondent since the inception of the tenancy and the respondent was charging extra for the same on monthly basis; that the electricity has been withheld or cut off by the respondent; that it is very difficult to the applicant and her school going children who have to prepared their board & college examination. It is prayed that respondent may kindly be directed to restore/provide electricity and water till disposal of the final application, so academic career of applicant's children can be saved.

3. The respondent opposed this application by filing reply wherein contented that the respondent is the absolute owner and landlord of the premises in which the respondent is a tenant; that the landlord has neither withheld or cut off the essential supply M(45)-1/12 Page 2 of 5 and service complained of by the applicant and she has filed the present petition as a counter blast to the eviction petition for non­payment of rent filed by the landlord against her; that it is pertinent to mention that it was only the statutory authority who had disconnected the electricity supply in the premises for the theft committed by the tenant during the year 2007; that there is no water connection installed in the tenanted premises and the occupants are using hand­pump in the premises so the question of cutting off and withholding the water supply does not arise at all. It is further prayed that the instant application/petition of the applicant may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice.

4. It is denied that the respondent in collusion with the officials of BSES has withheld/cut off the electricity facilities of the applicant and since then the applicant is living in miserable condition without any essential supply of electricity in peak days.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully.

6. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the respondent has cut off/withheld the electricity supply to the tenanted premises.

7. On the other hand, it is submitted by counsel for M(45)-1/12 Page 3 of 5 respondent that the applicant had committed theft of electricity and the electricity supply was disconnected by BSES 5 years back.

8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.

9. In order to seek relief under section 45 the DRC Act, a tenant is required to prove the following ingredients:­

(i)the landlord tenant relationship;

(ii)that the tenant was enjoying essential supply/ service at the time of inception of tenancy; and

(iii)that the essential supply/service was cut off/ withheld by the landlord with a view to compel the tenant to evict the premises or to pay enhanced rent.

10. Admittedly, there exist a landlord­tenant relationship between the parties. Admittedly the tenant was enjoying electricity supply to the tenanted premises at the time of inception of tenancy. Contention of the respondent is that the electricity was disconnected by the electricity department about 5 years back as a result of theft of electricity committed by the applicant. The applicant has not specifically stated the date on which the electricity was disconnected. There is no material on record on behalf of the applicant to prove that she was enjoying M(45)-1/12 Page 4 of 5 electricity supply in the tenanted premises recently before filing the present case or there was any water connection since the inception of the tenancy. On the other hand, the respondent has placed on record photocopies of assessment bill for theft of electricity, form of assessment of connected load and inspection reports in respect of the tenanted premises. In these circumstances, the applicant has failed to establish prima facie that the essential supply/service was cut off/withheld by the landlord with a view to compel the tenant to evict the premises or to pay enhanced rent.

11. For the reasons above stated, the application under Section 45 (4) DRC Act is dismissed.

Announced in the open court (Dr. Rakesh Kumar) on 16.04.2012 Additional Rent Controller (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

M(45)­1/12 16.04.2012 Present:­ Proxy for the applicant.

None for respondent.

Vide my separate order of even date, the application under Section 45 (4) DRC Act is dismissed.

Put up for applicant evidence on 17.07.12. Affidavits of all the witnesses be filed within 15 days from today with advance copy to the opposite party.

(Dr. Rakesh Kumar) ARC(East)/16.4.12 M(45)-1/12 Page 6 of 5