Electricity regulat'n not to be used as weapon by landlords to coerce tenants,HC
Electricity regulat'n not to be used as weapon by landlords to coerce tenants,HC
In case Consumer Forum directed Electricity Dept. to restore electricity connection, as Dept can't violate tenancy rights of occupant. On writ held, electricity supply basic amenity for any person. Regulations would become weapon in hands of unscrupulous landlords to be used against tenants by depriving them of electricity, thereby coercing them to vacate, & thus to do indirectly what they can't do directly. But this fear held totally misplaced.-500331
Facts in Brief:
1. Petitioner had agreement with second respondent herein, for taking on rent Bay Shop. It was stipulated therein that monthly water and electricity charges shall be paid by the lessee in addition to the lease amount.
2. Second & third respondents had interfered with the possession of the petitioner, he lodged DDRs on two separate.
3. Petitioner also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the leased premises wherein a stay was granted.
4. Consumer Forum directed the Electricity Department to restore the electricity connection stating that the Department cannot violate the tenancy rights of an occupant in view of a valid written rent agreement between the parties.
On petition after same, Court held,
5. This Court has already secured the restoration of the electricity connection and the same shall continue till an appropriate decision is taken by the Ombudsman on an appeal that the petitioner may prefer. If such an appeal is filed, time taken by the petitioner before this Court in prosecuting the writ petition will be considered for exclusion while computing the period of limitation for preferring the appeal.
6. The Electricity Corporation is at liberty to take a fresh application from the petitioner and grant connection after taking appropriate indemnity form in the manner contemplated under the Rules in which event the petitioner may not require any redressal through an appeal to the Ombudsman.
In the meantime, on an application moved by respondent
7. Electricity Department, the Electricity Ombudsman vide order dated 13.5.2015 (Annexure R-2/2) clarified that if the new connection formalities are not fulfilled within 15 days as per regulation 3.5(3) of the JERC (Supply Code) Regulations 2010, the licensee has the right to disconnect the existing electricity connection. Accordingly as the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite formalities, the electricity supply of Bay Sho No. 391, Sector 44-D, were disconnected vide PDCO dated 14.05.2015.
On writ petition Court held,
8. Undoubtedly electricity supply is a basic amenity for any person. I have pondered over the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, that if a landlord is permitted to act in the manner in which the respondents 2 and 3 have acted to first get the electricity supply to the premises disconnected on his request being the consumer as per Clause 9.2(1) of the Regulations and then a new electricity connection is not released to the tenant for his failure to comply with the conditions as per clause 3.5(3) of the Regulations, it would become a weapon in the hands of unscrupulous landlords to be used against the tenants by depriving them of electricity, thereby coercing them to vacate, and thus to do indirectly what they cannot do directly. However this fear is totally misplaced.
9. The Rent Restriction Acts have enough teeth to protect the bonafide tenants from misuse of the above provisions. In the present context Section 10 and 19 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 are the relevant provisions which come to their aid: GIANENDER KUMAR 2015.11.28 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh.
Case Reference-Comfort Technologies vs Engineering Deptt & Ors
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
