Nag Narayan Singh Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Shubh Narain Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rajnish Prakash, Advocate Ms. Lakshmi Kumari, Advocate Mr. Ankesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate

¶21

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶22

Date : 20-02-2025

¶23

Re: I.A. No. 01 of 2024

¶24

I.A. No. 01 of 2024 has been filed for condoning

¶25

Patna High Court L.P.A No.810 of 2024 dt.20-02-2025 2/4

¶26

the delay of 5 days in preferring this appeal.

¶27

For the reasons stated in the I.A. No. 01 of

¶28

2024, the delay of 5 days in preferring this appeal is condoned.

¶29

I.A. No. 01 of 2024 stands allowed.

¶30

Re: L.P.A. No. 810 of 2024

¶31

Heard Mr. Shubh Narain Singh, learned

¶32

Advocate for the appellant, who is the landlord and is

¶33

aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.07.2024 passed in CWJC No. 15765 of 2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the North Bihar Power Distribution

¶34

Company Limited to immediately restore the electric connection/resume the electric supply to Respondent No. 11.

¶35

Respondent No. 11 is the tenant of the

¶36

appellant, who after obtaining permission from him, got an electric meter installed.

¶37

He had been defaulting in making payments

¶38

over rent, forcing the landlord/appellant to approach the

¶39

Patna High Court L.P.A No.810 of 2024 dt.20-02-2025 3/4

¶40

Electricity Department for disconnection of line. That was not found to be in consonance with law as electricity is one of the basic amenities to which a person cannot be deprived without the due process of law.

¶41

There is no dispute about the fact that the Respondent No. 11 had been paying the electricity charges. In fact, there was no complaint on that score. It is only the apprehension of the appellant that taking advantage of a separate meter in the name of Respondent No. 11, he might stake his claim over the property.

¶42

Such apprehension is absolutely unfounded.

¶43

The learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in holding that if the landlord was not getting the monthly rental in time, he has the option of either getting the tenant/Respondent No. 11 evicted from his shop or approach the appropriate forum for recovery of rent.

¶44