Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Occupier's Right to Electricity Connection Subject to Authorized Occupancy: Allahabad High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant decision on the entitlement of tenants to electricity connections, the Allahabad High Court has elucidated the scope and limitations of such rights in the context of disputed occupancy. The bench, comprising Justices Manjive Shukla and S.D. Singh, delivered the judgment on 23 February 2024 in the case of Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma And Another vs. State Of UP And 4 Others (Writ - C No. - 5548 of 2024).

The crux of the judgement revolves around the rights of tenants, as 'occupiers', to seek an electricity connection independently of the landlord’s consent, as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the U.P. Electricity Code, 2005. The Court focused on the distinction between authorized and unauthorized occupancy in this context.

The petitioners, inducted as tenants in the premises at Varanasi, faced eviction proceedings and sought an independent electricity connection after the original connection was disconnected at the behest of the landlord. The issue before the court was whether the petitioners, facing an eviction decree and considered unauthorized occupants, were eligible to receive an electricity connection.

The Court acknowledged the tenant’s right to basic amenities, including electricity, but emphasized the condition of authorized occupancy for such entitlement. Citing precedents and statutory provisions, the bench clarified, “A tenant would be an authorized person in occupation of a premises. However, in the presence of an unchallenged eviction decree, the petitioners cannot be deemed authorized occupants.”

Justice Shukla noted, “The eviction decree against the petitioners impacts their status as 'authorized occupiers', thus affecting their eligibility for an electricity connection.” The Court refused to exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution in favor of the petitioners, given their current legal standing.

The writ petition was disposed of, with the observation that the petitioner's entitlement to an electricity connection is contingent upon a change in their legal status regarding the premises. The court held, “If the eviction decree is set aside, recalled, or stayed, the petitioners may apply afresh for the connection in accordance with the law.”

Date of Decision: 23 February 2024

Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma And Another vs. State Of UP And 4 Others

Latest Legal News