OM PARKASH Vs. BALKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is impugning the order dtd. 28/2/2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide which his appeal preferred against the order dtd. 19/1/2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, for grant of interim relief, by ordering the restoration of electricity connection in his shop, was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and being violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner, deserves to be set aside. He submits that the Courts below while passing the impugned orders failed to appreciate that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property and since electricity is a basic amenity, he could not be deprived of the same. He further contends that the electricity connection was disconnected by respondent No.1 with an ulterior motive so as to force the petitioner to vacate the suit property. He still further contends that the malafides on the part of respondent No.1 are writ large from the fact that he had filed a suit for seeking possession of the suit property (Annexure P-3) against the petitioner subsequent to the suit for permanent injunction instituted by the petitioner. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon Dilip (dead) through LRs Vs. Satish and others : 2022(9) Scale 759 and Dipali Dey (Baxi) Vs. Mira Das : 2010(8) RCR (Civil) 2912.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 while vehemently controverting the submissions made by the counsel opposite, contends that it was a matter of record that as per the rent agreement dtd. 7/7/2021, the lease pertaining to the suit property, in favour of the petitioner stood expired on 30/9/2021. Hence, in the circumstances, the petitioner had no right to continue being in possession of the suit property. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.1 had even terminated the tenancy of the petitioner vide legal notice dtd. 4/10/2021, hence, the status of the petitioner now was of a illegal occupant and as such he had no right to claim restoration of electricity connection.