Tenant's Right To Basic Amenities Like Electricity Subject To Him Being Authorized 'Occupier': Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that a legal and authorized occupier of a premises including a tenant cannot be deprived of basic amenities like electricity connection. However, the Court observed that this right to basic amenities is subject to other facts and circumstances.Reading the definition of 'occupier' in Section 2(oo) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2005, the Court held that an occupier must...
The Allahabad High Court has held that a legal and authorized occupier of a premises including a tenant cannot be deprived of basic amenities like electricity connection. However, the Court observed that this right to basic amenities is subject to other facts and circumstances.
Reading the definition of 'occupier' in Section 2(oo) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2005, the Court held that an occupier must be a legal and authorized occupier of the premises to seek such electricity connection.
Petitioners-tenants and their landlord have various disputes seeking eviction of the petitioners. In one proceeding, injunction has been granted in favor of the petitioner whereas in the second proceedings an ex-parte eviction order was passed against which a recall application is pending. Meanwhile, on application by the landlord, the Electricity Distribution Corporation disconnected the electricity connection of the premises.
Counsel for respondent argued that there were pending dues of more than Rs. 3,00,000. Instead of seeking to clear the dues, petitioners sought a fresh connection in their name as being the occupier of the premises.
Reliance was placed on Dilip (Dead) through LRS. v. Satish and others, where the Supreme Court had held
“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.”
It was further argued that since execution of eviction order was pending, no fresh connection could be given in the name of petitioners.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla held
“it needs no reiteration that a tenant may not be deprived of the electricity connection for reason of dispute with the landlord. To that extent, the tenant may not be left at the mercy of the landlord to avail that basic amenity. However, the decision of the Supreme Court in Dilip (supra) does not lay down a proposition-electricity connection must be granted in favour of a tenant irrespective of all other facts.”
The Court held that since the eviction order has been passed against the petitioners and execution proceedings were pending against the petitioners without any stay on the eviction order, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued for grant of electricity connection in favor of such occupier/tenant.
Case Title: Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma And Another v. State Of Up And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 5548 of 2024]
Counsel for Petitioner: Ashish Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent: Udit Chandra