{"id":1742,"date":"2024-04-22T10:40:13","date_gmt":"2024-04-22T05:10:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1742"},"modified":"2024-04-22T10:40:13","modified_gmt":"2024-04-22T05:10:13","slug":"allahabad-hc-holds-that-a-tenant-may-not-be-deprived-of-the-basic-amenities-because-of-dispute-with-the-landlord","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/allahabad-hc-holds-that-a-tenant-may-not-be-deprived-of-the-basic-amenities-because-of-dispute-with-the-landlord\/","title":{"rendered":"Allahabad HC holds that a tenant may not be deprived of the basic amenities because of dispute with the landlord"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma\u00a0 [<\/strong>petitioner]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong>State Of UP\u00a0 [<\/strong>Respondent]<\/h1>\n

(WRIT – No. – 5548 of 2024)<\/p>\n

(2JB, Dayal Singh and Manjive Shukla, JJ.)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The writ petition has been filed with the following main relief: “Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent nos. 2 to 4 to provide electricity connection in the portion of premises No. D-36\/17-18 Augustkunda, Varanasi which is under occupation of the petitioners-tenants<\/em>.” Admitted facts of the case are, the petitioners were the inducted as tenants of the disputed premises being D-36\/17-18 Agastkunda, Varanasi. At that time, there existed an electricity connection in the premises thus let out to the petitioners.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the present writ petition is maintainable or not?<\/p>\n

Argument on behalf of counsel for petitioner:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

According to the petitioners, the respondent-landlord was seeking to forcibly evict the petitioners. The petitioners filed Original Suit No. 154 of 2011, wherein vide order dated 19.07.2011, the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) City Varanasi granted injunction in favour of the petitioners restraining the respondent from evicting the petitioners except in accordance with law.<\/p>\n

Argument on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Distribution Corporation states, in face of eviction order passed against the petitioners which is pending execution and in light of outstanding dues against an old connection, the Distribution Corporation may not be forced to grant connection to the petitioners in such a situation.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court disposed off the present petition and held that, \u201cInasmuch as the petitioners are awaiting execution of the eviction decree, we refuse to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction to issue any writ or direction upon the electricity corporation to grant electricity connection to the petitioners, at this stage. We however make it clear, if the decree of eviction is set aside, recalled or stayed, at that stage, the petitioners may remain entitled to apply for connection in accordance with law noted above.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma\u00a0 [petitioner]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 State Of UP\u00a0 [Respondent] (WRIT – No. – 5548 of 2024) (2JB, Dayal Singh and Manjive Shukla, JJ.)   Facts: The writ petition has been filed with the following main relief: “Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent nos. 2 to 4 to provide electricity connection in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1744,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1742","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1742","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1742"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1742\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1745,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1742\/revisions\/1745"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1744"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1742"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1742"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1742"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}