PRAMESH KUMAR Vs. SOHAN LAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.1.1991 passed by the respondent No. 2 as well as directing the respondent No. 1 to restore the electricity connection. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a tenant and Sohan Lal respondent No. 1 is the landlord of the shop situated in Netaji Subhash Marg, Rudrapur. Application under section 21(1) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was filed for the release of the shop in question. The said application was rejected on 28.5.1982 and appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Nainital. The grievance of the petitioner is that the landlord has started harassing the petitioner and had disconnected the electricity connection. The petitioner has filed an application for restoration of electricity connection through sub -meter under section 27 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 2001 but the Prescribed Authority has rejected the same vide order dated 11.1.1991. The petitioner has stated that the Prescribed Authority has wrongly rejected the application.

(2.) A perusal of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority shows that the Prescribed Authority has recorded finding that the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount towards the electricity bills. The electricity connection was disconnected on 29.1.2004 for none payment of the dues. The prescribed authority has recorded the findings that there is nothing in the record to show that facility of electricity was provided by the landlord to the tenant and in view of the findings the landlord cannot be compelled to restore electricity to the petitioner.

(3.) THE prescribed authority has held that the electricity connection was cut off on 29.3.1989 and at that time there was outstanding bill of Rs. 531.75, if the applicant had continuously deposited the electricity bill there would have been no question of disconnection of electricity. The prescribed authority has also held that it is not clear that whether the landlord had provided amenity of electric connection to the tenant or not and, therefore, landlord cannot be directed to restore electricity connection to the applicant.