Disposed

Shri Maiki Jain v. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. and Ors.

Delhi HC15 Dec 2025W.P.(C)/18953/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A tenant whose electricity connection was disconnected for non-payment and not restored because the landlord refused an NOC sought restoration from the distribution company. The Court held electricity is a basic necessity under Article 21, directed restoration without NOC, with police assistance if needed, subject to payment of bills.

What did the court decide?

Directions to restore electricity from existing meter CA No. 103765522 without landlord NOC, landlord cooperation mandated, police assistance permitted, petitioner to pay consumption charges.

Shri Maiki Jain Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~50

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 15^th December, 2025

¶4

- W.P.(C) 18953/2025, CM APPL. 78893/2025 & CM APPL. 78894/2025

¶5

SHRI MAIKI JAIN .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Vishal Saxena, Ms. Meenakshi Garg and Ms. Rashi Aggarwal, Advs. with petitioner in person

¶7

versus

¶8

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sharique Hussain and Ms. Kirti Garg, Advs. for R-1

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶11

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL):

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondent no. 1 to restore the electricity supply either through the old meter or install a new electricity meter at the premises, i.e., GB-20, Third Floor, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi-110027 , without insisting on the No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) from respondent nos. 2 and 3, being the landlords of the premises in question.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is tenant in possession of the third floor of the aforesaid premises since the year 2016, in pursuance of several registered lease deeds. However, respondent no. 2 has filed a civil suit against the petitioner being CS DJ No. 750/2025 , titled as “ Anil Kumar Kalra Versus Maiki Jain ” which is pending

¶14

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.12.2025 19:40:22

¶15

W.P.(C) 18953/2025 Page 1 of 5

¶16

before the District Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi, seeking recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits, and permanent injunction against the petitioner herein.

¶17

Further, the petitioner has also filed a counter claim on 06^th December 2025 against respondent no. 1, titled as “ Maiki Jain Versus Anil Kumar Kalra ”, seeking inter alia , decree of mandatory and permanent injunction against respondent no. 1, and thereby, directing the respondent no. 1 to restore the continuous water supply, which has deliberately been disconnected by the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶18

It is submitted that the electricity meter bearing C.A. No. 103765522, is installed and registered in the names of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the petitioner has been receiving electricity in the tenanted premises through the said connection. Further, the petitioner had been paying the electricity charges to respondent no. 1, i.e., BSES Rajdhani Power Limited from time to time, and electricity was continuously being supplied to the petitioner. 5. It is submitted that due to temporary financial hardship, the petitioner was unable to clear the pending electricity charges for the months of September-October, 2025. Resultantly, the respondent no. 1 disconnected the supply and removed the electricity meter on 28^th November, 2025.

¶19

It is further submitted that the petitioner has cleared the outstanding electricity dues on 28^th November, 2025 itself and that no amount remains payable to the respondent no. 1. Subsequent to such payment, the petitioner requested the respondent no. 1 to restore the electricity and/or to install the electricity meter qua the said premises. However, the respondent no. 1 insisted upon an NOC from the respondent nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the landlords. Nonetheless, the respondent nos. 2 and 3, have refused to provide any NOC

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

W.P.(C) 18953/2025 Page 2 of 5

¶22

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.12.2025 19:40:22

¶23

to the petitioner. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶24

Responding to the present writ petition, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, i.e., BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, submits that respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the registered consumers of the electricity and that the electricity connection was disconnected on account of non-payment of electricity dues. Subsequently, they had received a communication from respondent nos. 2 and 3, not to re-connect the electricity connection on third floor of the property in question. He, thus, submits that the electricity connection has not been restored.

¶25

He further submits that the electricity connection is within lock and key of respondent nos. 2 and 3. Thus, in the absence of any cooperation from respondent nos. 2 and 3, it would not be possible for respondent no. 1 to restore the electricity connection to third floor of the premises in question. 9. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, it is to be noted that a pending landlord and tenant dispute cannot be the basis for depriving electricity, which is a basic amenity. Admittedly, there are pending disputes between the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 and 3. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question, lawfully, and till the time, there is any eviction order passed against the petitioner by a Court of law, the possession of the petitioner cannot be said to be unlawful.

¶26

It is to be noted that electricity is a basic necessity and an integral part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, as long as the petitioner is in possession of the property in question, he cannot be deprived of the same.

¶27

Needless to state that Courts in Catena of judgments have

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

W.P.(C) 18953/2025 Page 3 of 5

¶30

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.12.2025 19:40:22

¶31

categorically held that the electricity is one of the Fundamental Rights for existence and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, no citizen can be expected to live a life devoid of basic necessities such as the electricity.

¶32

Accordingly, it is directed as follows:

¶33

i. The respondent no. 1 shall restore the electricity connection to third floor of the property in question from the already existing meter, i.e., CA No. 103765522 , which is installed and registered in the names of respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶34

ii. The respondent no. 1 shall not insist on any NOC from respondent nos. 2 and 3, being the landlords and the registered consumers of the electricity connection in the premises in question.

¶35

iii. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall cooperate with respondent no. 1 and shall not disrupt the respondent no. 1 in restoring the electricity connection of the petitioner.

¶36

iv. In case of resistance from respondent nos. 2 and 3 in restoring electricity connection by the respondent no. 1, the respondent no. 1 is at liberty to seek police assistance.

¶37

v. Respondent no. 1 is directed to visit the premises in question on Friday, i.e., 19^th December, 2025 at 11:00 AM. In case required, the official of respondent no. 1 shall be accompanied by the Local Police.

¶38

vi. The petitioner is directed to be present at the time of visit by the officials of respondent no. 1.

¶39

vii. The petitioner shall comply with all the codal and commercial requirements of respondent no. 1.

¶40

viii. The petitioner shall pay the consumption charges in accordance with

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

W.P.(C) 18953/2025 Page 4 of 5

¶43

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.12.2025 19:40:22

¶44

the bills, raised by respondent no. 1 from time to time.

¶45

ix. Respondent no. 1 shall be entitled to disconnect the electricity supply in the property occupied by the petitioner, in case the petitioner fails to pay the electricity charges.

¶46

x. It is clarified that this order shall not be construed as recognizing any possessory rights of the petitioner with regard to the property in question. Further, the order passed today shall not be construed as conferring any special equity in favour of the petitioner and shall not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in their pending disputes.

¶47

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with the pending applications, is accordingly disposed of.

¶48

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶49

DECEMBER 15, 2025/KR

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

W.P.(C) 18953/2025 Page 5 of 5

¶52

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.12.2025 19:40:22

Shri Maiki Jain v. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Maiki Jain v. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khemo Devi Public School through Its Administrator Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Anjuman Muntazim Auqaf Dargha Hazrat Maqdoom Samauddin through Secretary Inam Hasan Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Deepanshu Bansal Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Management/Chairman Balvantray Mehta Vidya Bhawan Senior Secondary School and Anr. Vs Anil Kumar Aggarwal and Anr.

I Money Wallet Private Limited through Its Director Vs Sales Tax Officer Class II / Avato, Ward 64, Zone 4 & Anr.

Zakir Hussain & Anr. Vs the North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Ak Enterprises Vs UOI and Ors.

Binod Kumar Verma Vs Commissioner of Customs

Deepanshu Bansal Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Manju Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Sheetal Goyal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Hari Singh Vs Kitabo Devi

Sagar Rajendra Kumar Mangla Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs Ram Kishan Tokas & Ors.