AJEET KAUR Vs. CITY MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the.parties.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a tenant and respondent No. 5 is a land lord. Without taking note of the dispute between the landlord and the tenant's rights and about the arrears it was considered proper by this Court that the respondent No. 3 and 4 may be directed to give water and electricity connection after realisation of the dues if any. The land -lord does not come into picture at all. I think that every tenant has a right to have the electricity and water and that right cannot be denied in the modern times. The respondent No. 3 and 4 are directed to restore and maintain the connection of the petitioner, if they pay regularly the electricity and water dues. The consent of the land -lord in the matter of giving a connection to the tenant is not all necessary. It is the occupier who is getting a connection. The question that there should be the consent of the land -lord is against the norms of the present society and no law provides that there should be a consent of the land -lord. Even if there are administrative instructions they will not come into the way and the tenant will have a right of connection directly from the respondent Electricity Board and the Public Health Engineering Department at their own cost and they will be liable to pay the dues according to the rates fixed The security and other amount will also be deposited by the tenant if not deposited so far.

(3.) THE writ petition is disposed of accordingly.