High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/6392/2018

Mahender Singh v. B S E S Rajdhani Power Limited

2018-08-02Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao2 pages

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6392/2018 MAHENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Zafar Sadiq, Adv.

versus B S E S RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Standing Counsel for BSES RPL with Mr.

Arnav Vidyarthi, Adv. for R1 Respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

O R D E R

% 02.08.2018 The respondent No.2 is present in person with his wife. Mr. Zafar Sadiq, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall be satisfied if the petitioner is allowed to install a sub meter at the second floor of the property being H. No.89, Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017. He also states that the petitioner shall pay the consumption charges in terms of sub meter to the respondent No.2 to enable him to further pay the charges of the electricity for the entire property to the respondent No.1.

This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been put to the respondent No.2 Mr. Mangtu Ram. He is agreeable to this

arrangement. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent No.2 shall permit the petitioner to install a sub meter at the second floor of property H. No.89, Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017. The petitioner shall pay the consumption charges in terms of the sub meter to the respondent No.2 on or before 7th day of each calendar month. On receipt of the same, the respondent No.2 shall pay the entire consumption charges of the property to the respondent No.1.

I take on record the submission made by Mr. Mangtu Ram / respondent No.2 that the apprehension of the petitioner that he (Mangtu Ram) may disconnect the electricity connection to the second floor as baseless. He states that he has neither in the past nor shall in future disconnect the electricity of second floor.

Mr. Zafar Sadiq states, in view of the aforesaid nothing further survives in the writ petition, the same be disposed of as such. Ordered accordingly.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed itself with regard to the title of the property.

Dasti.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J AUGUST 02, 2018/aky