Electricity can’t be denied to tenant due to landlord-tenant dispute and pending legal case, rules Delhi High Court

Why did the tenant win this case

According to Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris, the tenant, succeeded because the Delhi High Court unequivocally held that access to electricity is a basic and indispensable facet of the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, which cannot be curtailed due to private landlord-tenant disputes.

Razvi says that the Court noted that the tenant had been in continuous and lawful possession of the premises since 2016, supported by multiple registered lease deeds. Although the electricity meter stood in the landlords’ names, the tenant had been receiving electricity and paying bills directly to BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.

The supply was disconnected on November 28, 2025 due to temporary non-payment of dues for September–October 2025, but those dues were subsequently cleared in full.

Despite this, BSES Rajdhani refused restoration solely because the landlords declined to issue a No-Objection Certificate (NOC), citing an ongoing civil suit for possession, arrears and mesne profits.

Razvi says: “The High Court rejected this stance, holding that once lawful possession and clearance of dues are established, an electricity distributor cannot insist on a landlord’s consent. Pending civil litigation, the Court held, cannot be used as a tool to deprive an occupant of essential services or to indirectly coerce eviction.”

Raheel Patel, Partner, Gandhi Law Associates, says that the key takeaway from this judgement is stark and non-negotiable i.e. access to electricity flows from the right to life and cannot be converted into leverage in landlord-tenant disputes.

Patel says: “The mere pendency of civil litigation, or a landlord’s refusal to cooperate, does not authorise a distribution company to deny an essential service once dues are cleared and possession remains lawful.”

According to Patel, the judgment draws a clear line—utilities are not bargaining chips, and service providers cannot invent conditions like a landlord’s NOC when the statutory and commercial requirements are otherwise fulfilled.

Patel says: “Until possession is displaced by a competent court, the occupant’s right to basic amenities subsists, and courts will consistently privilege substance over form to prevent arbitrary and coercive deprivation of necessities.”

Delhi High Court analysis and discussion

The writ petition was filed seeking directions to the respondent no. 1 (BSES Rajdhani) to restore the electricity supply either through the old meter or install a new electricity meter at the premises of the landlord in New Delhi, without insisting on the No Objection Certificate (NOC) from respondent nos. 2 and 3, being the landlords of the premises in question.

The tenant’s lawyer told the Delhi High Court that the tenant has been in possession of the third floor of the aforesaid premises since 2016, following several registered lease deeds. However, respondent no. 2 (landlord) has filed a civil suit against the tenant being CS DJ No. 750/2025, which is pending before the District Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi, seeking recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits, and permanent injunction against the petitioner (tenant) herein.

The petitioner (tenant) has also filed a counter claim on December 6, 2025 against respondent no. 1 (landlord), seeking inter alia, decree of mandatory and permanent injunction against respondent no. 1 (landlord), and thereby, directing the respondent no. 1 to restore continuous water supply, which was deliberately disconnected by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 (landlords).

It was submitted that the electricity meter, is installed and registered in the names of respondent nos. 2 and 3 (landlord) and the petitioner (tenant) has been receiving electricity in the tenanted premises through that connection.

Further, the petitioner (tenant) had been paying the electricity charges to BSES Rajdhani Power from time to time which was continuously supplying electricity to the petitioner.

The Delhi High Court said the tenant told the court that due to temporary financial hardship, the petitioner (tenant) was unable to clear the pending electricity charges for September-October, 2025. Following this, the respondent no. 1 disconnected the supply and also removed the electricity meter on 28th November, 2025.

Outstanding electricity charges is cleared by tenant

The tenant further submitted before the court that he has cleared the outstanding electricity dues on November 28, 2025 itself and that no amount remains payable to the respondent no. 1.

After making the payment, the petitioner (tenant) requested the respondent no. 1 (BSES Rajdhani) to restore electricity and/or install the electricity meter in the said premises.

However, the respondent no. 1 insisted upon an NOC from the respondent nos. 2 and 3, that is the landlords but they refused to provide any NOC to the petitioner.

Responding to the present writ petition, the counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, i.e., BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd, submits that respondent nos. 2 and 3 (landlord) are the registered consumers of the electricity and that the electricity connection was disconnected on account of non-payment of electricity dues.

Subsequently, they had received a communication from respondent nos. 2 and 3, not to re-connect the electricity connection on the third floor of the property in question. He, thus, submits that the electricity connection has not been restored.

He further submits that the electricity connection is locked up by respondent nos. 2 and 3. Thus, in the absence of any cooperation from respondent nos. 2 and 3, it would not be possible for respondent no. 1 to restore the electricity connection to the third floor of the premises in question.

Delhi High Court judgement

The Delhi High Court said that it is to be noted that a pending landlord and tenant dispute cannot be the basis for depriving electricity, which is a basic amenity. Admittedly, there are pending disputes between the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 and 3.

Delhi High Court said: “However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner (tenant) is in possession of the property in question, lawfully, and till the time, there is any eviction order passed against the petitioner by a Court of law, the possession of the petitioner cannot be said to be unlawful.”

The Delhi High Court said that it is to be noted that electricity is a basic necessity and an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, as long as the petitioner (tenant) is in possession of the property in question, he cannot be deprived of the same.

Delhi High Court said: “Needless to state that Courts in Catena of judgments have categorically held that electricity is one of the Fundamental Rights for existence and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, no citizen can be expected to live a life devoid of basic necessities such as electricity.”

Judgement:

• The respondent no. 1 shall restore the electricity connection to the third floor of the property in question from the already existing meter,, which is installed and registered in the names of respondent nos. 2 and 3 (landlord).
• The respondent no. 1 shall not insist on any NOC from respondent nos. 2 and 3, being the landlords and the registered consumers of the electricity connection in the premises in question
• Respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall cooperate with respondent no. 1 and shall not disrupt the respondent no. 1 in restoring the electricity connection of the petitioner.
• In case of resistance from respondent nos. 2 and 3 in restoring electricity connection by the respondent no. 1, the respondent no. 1 is at liberty to seek police assistance.
• Respondent no. 1 is directed to visit the premises in question on Friday, i.e., 19th December, 2025 at 11:00 AM. In case required, the official of respondent no. 1 shall be accompanied by the Local Police.
• The petitioner (tenant) is directed to be present at the time of visit by the officials of respondent no. 1.
• The petitioner shall comply with all the codal and commercial requirements of respondent no. 1.
• The petitioner shall pay the consumption charges in accordance with the bills, raised by respondent no. 1 from time to time.
• Respondent no. 1 shall be entitled to disconnect the electricity supply in the property occupied by the petitioner, in case the petitioner fails to pay the electricity charges.

The Delhi High Court clarified that this order shall not be construed as recognizing any possessory rights of the petitioner (tenant) with regard to the property in question.

Delhi High Court said: “Further, the order passed today shall not be construed as conferring any special equity in favour of the petitioner (tenant) and shall not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in their pending disputes. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with the pending applications, is accordingly disposed of.”