HANEEF Vs. RASHIDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner gave an undertaking to the court of Additional Rent Controller on 7th February, 2008 that he shall pay electricity and water charges as per consumption and as per reading in the meter. He will get a sub-meter installed for electricity and water within one week at his own expense. After giving this statement in the court, he withdrew the suit. The respondent had also given a statement that he had no objection if the petitioner gets a sub-meter installed and directly makes the payment for consumption of water and electricity to the Department without prejudice to the rights of the parties.

(2.) Electricity of the premises was thereafter disconnected because of non-payment of dues and the petitioner then approached Additional Rent Controller under Section 45 (3) of Delhi Rent Control Act seeking a direction for the landlord to get the electricity and water supply reconnected. Learned Additional Rent Controller observed that it was the petitioner himself who had given an undertaking to the court that he would pay electricity C.M. (M) No.1504/2009 Page No.1 of 3 and water dues as per consumption and as per reading of sub-meter directly to the Department concerned. The petitioner's averment that he had sent money order charges to the respondent was also found false as nothing was placed on record to show that money order was sent. Learned Additional Rent Controller, therefore, dismissed the application under Section 45 (3) of Delhi Rent Control Act.

(3.) An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 13th October, 2009 on the ground that it was barred by limitation. An application made by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also dismissed observing that the petitioner had not disclosed sufficient cause which prevented him from filing the appeal within period of limitation.