Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/738520/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7385 of 2008
=========================================================
DIPAKKUMAR
GIRDHARBHAI RATHOD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MADHYA
GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MURALI N DEVNANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS RV ACHARYA for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR GIRISH M DAS for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 01/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Mr.Dharmesh
Devnani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the suit
being Regular Civil Suit No.30 of 2005 shall be withdrawn by him
within a period of one week from today.
Heard
Mr.Devnani, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Girish Das,
learned Counsel for the contesting party respondent No.2 herein.
Upon
hearing the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, it prima
facie appears that it is an admitted position that the petitioner is
the tenant of respondent No.2, who was rented the shop. It is also
an admitted position that the eviction suit is filed by the
respondent No.2 against the petitioner for recovery of the
possession and the said dispute is pending before the Civil Court.
It appears that the electricity was disconnected on the alleged
ground of theft and non-payment of electricity bills. By the
present petition, the petitioner is seeking electricity connection,
in any case, so along as he is occupying the premises.
Mr.Das,
learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that earlier
the petitioner had preferred Regular Civil Suit No.30 of 2005 for
protecting the possession and in the said suit prayer is also made
for granting interim relief for electricity connection. However,
the trial Judge had rejected the said prayer, against which the
petitioner has preferred appeal being Civil Misc. Appeal No.46 of
2007, which has also been rejected and, therefore, in this petition,
the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief for getting the
electricity connection and he submitted that this Court in a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not
entertain such prayer.
It
appears that so far as the proceedings of the Civil Suits are
concerned, the learned Counsel has already declared that the same
would be withdrawn and, therefore, Court has no reasons to
disbelieve the same. The consequence would be it would not be
simultaneous proceedings. Further, the peculiar and larger aspect is
for supply of the electricity to a tenant, who is up till now not
evicted by the landlord. However, the landlord, who is respondent
No.2, by resisting the supply of the electricity cannot create a
situation that the tenant is left without electricity. The need of
electricity is as good as necessity and, therefore, for convenient
use of the premises by the tenant until he is evicted, the
electricity would be a basic requirement. The supply, in any case,
is to be taken at the cost and risk of the tenant petitioner
herein and respondent No.2 will not suffer any loss or injury.
Under
these circumstances, Rule.
By interim order, it is directed that if the petitioner applies for
grant of electricity connection to respondent No.1, the same shall
be considered in accordance with law and respondent No.1 Company
shall grant the electricity connection as per the seriatum in case
if there is a waiting list. It would be required for the petitioner
to pay all necessary charges for such purpose and any resistance by
respondent No.2 shall not be taken into consideration by respondent
No.1. It is also clarified that in the event in the eviction suit
the respondent No.2 succeeds, the petitioner will not be in a
position to claim any additional equity on the ground that he had
incurred expenses for electricity connection and that the
electricity connection exists on his name. The Civil Court shall be
at liberty to pass the order of eviction, if ultimately landlord
succeeds by handing over of the possession with the said
electricity connection. Direct service is permitted.
1.8.2008 (Jayant
Patel, J.)
vinod
Top