Bombay HC: Special court or civil court has no power to order restoration of electric supply at interim stage if prosecution is initiated under S 135 of Electricity Act

It is thus clear that this section nowhere provides a power in the Court to grant any interim relief. Only option for a person under Section 135 of the said Act to deposit the entire amount. If the entire amount is deposited, it is only then that the connection can be restored, and it is only thereafter the provisions of Section 154(5) can be invoked.{Para 8}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

914 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 814 OF 2025

The Superintending Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Com. Ltd. Ahmednagar And Others Vs Rajendra Tukaram Avhad

CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.

DATE : 14th AUGUST 2025.

Print Page

Can the Electricity board refuse to give electric supply to the tenant if the landlord fails to issue a no-objection certificate?

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.

 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 810 OF 2022

DILIP(DEAD) Vs  SATISH & OTHERS 

Author: INDIRA BANERJEE J.

Dated: MAY 13, 2022

Print Page

Whether a person is entitled to get electric connection during pendency of title suit if he is in possession of suit property?

It is not in dispute that petitioners are in possession of the subject property. Mere pendency of the Civil Suit would not be a ground to disentitle the petitioners from obtaining an electricity connection in their name, particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioners are in possession of the subject property. {Para 7}

8. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Respondent/BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. is directed to grant an electricity connection to the petitioners, subject to petitioners complying with the requisite codal and financial formalities for grant of an electricity connection.

9. It is clarified that the grant of electricity connection in favour of the petitioners would not amount to acknowledgement of any right in favour of the petitioners and shall also not grant any special equity in favour of the petitioners and the same would be without prejudice to the Rights and contentions of the Defendants in the Suit filed by the Petitioner No. 1.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 W.P.(C) 3819/2022 & CM. APPLS.11316-17/2022 

SHRI ASHOK PANWAR & ANR. Vs BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR

 CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Dated: 07.03.2022 

Print Page

Is the right to get an Electricity supply a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution?

 The civil suit filed by the petitioner seeking mandatory injunction for restoration of electricity having been dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy will not debar him from filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it is a settled proposition of law that electricity is one the Fundamental Rights for existence and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, subject to the petitioner complying with other requirements. {Para 7}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 890/2022 

ASHISH GUPTA Vs TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED

CORAM:-  MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA 

Dated: 14.01.2022 

Print Page

Whether the Small cause court can grant reconnection of electric supply or water supply to the occupant of premises if he is gratuitous licensee as per landlord?

Mr. Vora further submitted that section 29 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 cannot be invoked by the Petitioners since they are not tenants or subtenants but they are mere gratuitous licensee and hence, no relief could have been granted in their favour even by the Trial Court. Mr. Vora, therefore, submitted that the Appeal was rightly allowed by the Appellate Court and prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

13. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and I am inclined to partly set aside the impugned orders for the following reasons :

i The fact that the Petitioners are in physical possession of the suit premises is not in dispute. In fact the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have both recorded a finding of fact in that respect. The very fact that the Respondent Defendant has now filed L.E. & C. Suit No. 91/120 of 2011 for possession clearly shows that the Petitioners herein are in physical possession. In this situation the law is well established that a person in possession of immovable property even when his possession is wrongful, cannot be dispossessed without following due procedure prescribed by law and there is series of Judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts who have taken this view. The learned Judge of the Trial Court had rightly granted an injunction that Plaintiffs could not be dispossessed by the Defendant without following due process of law and virtually no reason is given by the learned Judges of the Appellate Court as to why even this injunction has been set aside.

ii In so far as electricity supply is concerned, the Trial Court had rightly observed that the Plaintiffs can obtain any independent electricity supply from BEST or other service provider but after having observed this, the Trial Court ought to have moulded the relief in such a manner that it's observations in paragraph 13 of the impugned Judgment are capable of being implemented. This is not done by the Trial Court.

iii In so far as the Judgment of the Appellate Court is concerned, once having found that the Plaintiffs are in physical possession even when the Appellate Court was justified in observing that the nature of possession and the status of the Plaintiffs was in doubt, even without having regard to the provisions of section 29 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the Appellate Bench has overlooked the provisions of section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which reserves inherent power with the Court and provides that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

(Emphasis supplied)

iv If the Petitioners are in physical possession of the suit premises, which fact is accepted even before me by the learned Advocate for the Respondent during the course of the argument, then one fails to understand as to why they should be deprived of electricity and water supply which is absolutely bare necessity and essential for even the basic day-to-day life in the modern world. This aspect is completely overlooked by the learned Judges of the Appellate Court. Merely because the documents which were relied upon by the Plaintiffs at the time of hearing of the interim application were not sufficient to establish a plea of tenancy, the Appellate Court could not have overlooked the fact that the suit is yet to be tried and the evidence is yet to be led. At the prima facie stage, the material available on the record was sufficient to infer at least one thing that the Plaintiffs were in exclusive physical possession of the suit premises and also that the said possession of the Petitioners is not a forcible possession and even the Defendant has not raised a plea that just prior to the filing of the suit, the Plaintiffs have forcibly entered the suit premises. This being the state of affairs, in my opinion, learned Judges of the Appellate Court have committed a manifest error in interfering with the Judgment of the Trial Court.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 7315 of 2011

Decided On: 18.10.2011

 Hansa Bhaskar Dave Vs. Harihar Himmatlal Mehta

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Godbole, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1339/2011,2012(1) Mh.LJ630

Print Page

Supreme Court: Sub-lessee can not claim re-connection of electric supply if he fails to pay lease rent, maintenance charges, electricity charges

We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and we make it clear that we are not deciding this plea on merits. However, we have no doubt in our mind that the sub-lessee cannot claim that no amount is payable by it. It has not paid a single rupee to the Petitioner despite occupying the premises for more than 7 years. We cannot appreciate this conduct of the sub-lessee. In a multi-storeyed building of this nature there has to be provision for security guards, cleaning services, lift operators, parking attendants, etc. When the parties had agreed that Rs. 15/- per sq. ft. per month would be paid in the first year, we can presume that the sub-lessee must have satisfied itself that these are the approximate expenses to be incurred by the Petitioner for maintenance of the building. 

10. It was also urged on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that there were some periods during which the electricity was disconnected and, therefore, it should not be asked to pay any charges for the said period. We are not in agreement with the said submission. The Respondent No. 1 did not pay a single rupee either on account of lease rent, maintenance charges, electricity charges or other charges and in such event, the Petitioner had no option but to disconnect the electricity. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court clearly misdirected itself in directing restoration of the electricity without ensuring payment of some amount to the Petitioner.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21341 of 2019

Decided On: 07.02.2020

 Infinity Infotech Parks Limited  Vs.  Shiva Jute Mills Private Limited and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.

Citation: (2020) 3 SCC 262

Print Page

Whether person in possession of premises can be denied electric and water supply if his suit for tenancy declaration is pending?

If the Petitioners are in physical possession of the suit premises, which fact is accepted even before me by the learned Advocate for the Respondent during the course of the argument, then one fails to understand as to why they should be deprived of electricity and water supply which is absolutely bare necessity and essential for even the basic day-to-day life in the modern world. This aspect is completely overlooked by the learned Judges of the Appellate Court. Merely because the documents which were relied upon by the Plaintiffs at the time of hearing of the interim application were not sufficient to establish a plea of tenancy, the Appellate Court could not have overlooked the fact that the suit is yet to be tried and the evidence is yet to be led. At the prima facie stage, the material available on the record was sufficient to infer at least one thing that the Plaintiffs were in exclusive physical possession of the suit premises and also that the said possession of the Petitioners is not a forcible possession and even the Defendant has not raised a plea that just prior to the filing of the suit, the Plaintiffs have forcibly entered the suit premises. This being the state of affairs, in my opinion, learned Judges of the Appellate Court have committed a manifest error in interfering with the Judgment of the Trial Court. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 7315 of 2011

Decided On: 18.10.2011

 Hansa Bhaskar Dave Vs. Harihar Himmatlal Mehta

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Godbole, J.

Citation: 2012(1) MHLJ730,2012(5) BonCR348,2012(1) AllMR 4

Print Page

Whether plaintiff is entitled to get electricity and water supply during pendency of suit for declaration of tenancy rights?

If the Petitioners are in physical possession of the suit premises, which fact is accepted even before me by the learned Advocate for the Respondent during the course of the argument, then one fails to understand as to why they should be deprived of electricity and water supply which is absolutely bare necessity and essential for even the basic day-to-day life in the modern world. This aspect is completely overlooked by the learned Judges of the Appellate Court. Merely because the documents which were relied upon by the Plaintiffs at the time of hearing of the interim application were not sufficient to establish a plea of tenancy, the Appellate Court could not have overlooked the fact that the suit is yet to be tried and the evidence is yet to be led. At the prima facie stage, the material available on the record was sufficient to infer at least one thing that the Plaintiffs were in exclusive physical possession of the suit premises and also that the said possession of the Petitioners is not a forcible possession and even the Defendant has not raised a plea that just prior to the filing of the suit, the Plaintiffs have forcibly entered the suit premises. This being the state of affairs, in my opinion, learned Judges of the Appellate Court have committed a manifest error in interfering with the Judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, a case for grant of relief by exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out, particularly when the learned Judges of the Appellate Court have not applied their mind to the facts of the case in proper perspective and the impugned Judgment and Orders exhibits that the learned Judges of the Appellate Court were completely oblivious of the existence of section 151 of the Code on the Statute Book.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 7315 of 2011

Decided On: 18.10.2011

Hansa Bhaskar Dave Vs. Harihar Himmatlal Mehta

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Godbole, J.

Citation: 2012(1) MHLJ 730, 2012(1) ALLMR 4

Print Page

Whether electric meter can be installed in premises of one person to give electric supply to other person?

Mr. Utpal Bose, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order in discharge of his duties under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and as such this Court should not interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 3. I am, however, unable to accept such submission of Mr. Bose. While discharging functions as a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 the respondent no. 1 CESC and its officers are required to act bona fide and not to use a citizen's property for supplying electricity to an occupier of a different property or to any person occupying pavement of a public street. In the instant case, from the very beginning the petitioner raised objection to the installation of the meter at his premises for supplying electricity to the said shop of the private respondent, on the specific ground that the said shop room does not form part of his premises being premises no. 91 A.J.C. Bose Road. However, without disclosing any reason to the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 installed the said meter at the premises of the petitioner.

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)

Kartick Chandra Chandra vs C.E.S.C. Ltd. & Ors on 16 April, 2015

Author: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty

                    Citation; AIR 2015 (NOC)862 cal

Print Page