SYED AMIR ALI Vs. ANJUMAN-E-HAIDERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dtd. 26th July, 2021 of the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) (South-East), Saket Courts, New Delhi passed in RCT No. 24/2018, whereby the order of the Rent Controller dtd. 16th October, 2017 directing restoration of the electricity supply to the property in question consisting of two rooms and an open courtyard on the first floor, known as Balakhana (Naqqarkhana), Main Gate, Dargah Shah Mardan at Aliganj, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, was set aside, with the further observations that the petition under Sec. 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was not maintainable before the Rent Controller. A further direction had been given to the respondent no.3/NDMC to disconnect the electricity supply to the property in question, after 30 days of the impugned order, within which time the petitioner was to approach the right forum.

(2.) The issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether in light of the amendments carried out to Sections 83 and 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (Waqf Act) in 2013, the remedy of the petitioner in respect of disconnection of his electricity connection by the respondent no.1 would lie before the Rent Controller (under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) or before the Waqf Tribunal in terms of the Waqf Act.

(3.) Mr. Arvind Sharma, counsel for the petitioner, submits that the RCT had come to an erroneous conclusion that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition under Sec. 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 filed by the petitioner, and that the right forum for adjudication of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 was the Waqf Tribunal. It is further submitted that even after the 2013 amendments to the Waqf Act, the petitioner could not have approached the Waqf Tribunal since the dispute was not in the nature of a dispute in terms of Sec. 6 or Sec. 7 of the Waqf Act. It is also pointed out that though, initially the petition under Sec. 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 had been filed only against the respondents no. 1 and 2, but since they had taken the stand that it was not their obligation to supply electricity and it was the respondent no.3/NDMC, which was the competent authority to supply electricity, the NDMC was impleaded as a party. The Rent Controller had directed the respondent no.3/NDMC to install a sub-meter at the suit premises and supply electricity to the same, the cost of which was to be borne by the petitioner. This was an interim order against which the respondent no.1 had preferred an appeal before the RCT. The RCT had therefore, misdirected itself by going into the question of jurisdiction and dismissed the petition without allowing the Rent Controller to decide this issue.