VIJAY GUPTA Vs. MANOJ MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 2nd February 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge on an application under Section 151 CPC whereby the learned Civil Judge directed the plaintiff/ landlord to clear the dues with electricity department, if any, and get the electricity connection restored in the suit property within a month, in case the respondent/tenant deposits 50% of the arrears of rent from 1st September 2006 to 31st January 2008 and deposits the remaining 50% after restoration of electricity connection.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the plaintiff (petitioner herein) let out the premises bearing No. 57/2, Naniwala bagh, Azadpur, Delhi to the defendant (respondent herein) on a monthly rental of rs. 5000/- excluding all water and electricity charges on 1st October 2003. The lease was for a period of 3 years and it expired on 30th September 2006. There was a clause of enhancement of rent at the rate of 5 per cent. The electricity and water charges were to be paid by the defendant as per the consumption shown by the sub meter installed therein. The plaintiff found that there was a huge difference in the electricity bill generated by NDPL and the amount of Rs. 500 per month being paid by the respondent in terms of the sub meter. Hence, he inspected the premises and found that the defendant was using two Photostat machines, six computers, one lamination machine, one fax machine and two STDs on a commercial scale in the premises and was doing the business of Photostat and computer generated printouts etc. He was consuming electricity of above 1000 units per month but was tampering with the sub meter and he was paying only rs. 500/- per month. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant by a notice dated 9th October 2006 asking the defendant to handover the peaceful possession of the property by the end of midnight of 30th October 2006. The plaintiff thereafter filed a suit seeking possession of the premises on termination of the lease. In the suit the plaintiff stated that the defendant had made electricity consumption of over Rs. 1,26,000/- but has paid only rs. 17692/- for the entire tenancy period. The plaintiff had been paying electricity bills regularly till June 2006 but due to non-payment of the electricity bill dated 27th April 2007 i. e. after termination of the tenancy, the electricity was disconnected by NDPL on 2nd June 2007. The defendant filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in this suit seeking restoration of electricity connection while the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC for directions to the defendant to pay the user charge/charges at the admitted rate during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff/petitioner also informed the Court while replying the application of the defendant that the defendant had used the electricity much more than that what he had paid. There were several other commercial premises. The petitioner paid electricity bills to the tune of Rs. 1,07,140/- for the electricity consumed which was much more than what the plaintiff realized from the collection from tenant i. e. Rs. 12,896/ -.

(3.) IT is submitted by the petitioner that the order of learned Civil Judge directing him to restore the electricity was passed on an application under section 151 CPC which was a non-appealable. He submitted that the impugned order was illegal and contrary to law since the tenancy of the defendant had been terminated. He was not supposed to restore the electricity by paying arrears of electricity from his own pocket.