Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

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