In a significant legal battle at the Delhi High Court, a judgment has been passed in favor of the property owner at Shakti Nagar regarding the removal of an unauthorized transformer. The court’s decision emphasizes the rights of property owners and the need for lawful use of premises. This ruling sets a crucial precedent in property law and highlights the importance of upholding legal boundaries in such cases.
Facts
- The plaintiff is the registered owner of property Municipal Number 2-B, Block No.19, Shakti Nagar, admeasuring 1577.22 sq. yds.
- The plaintiff had inducted M/s Legacy Hotels & Infra Projects Ltd. as a tenant for running a Hotel/Guest House on a monthly rent of Rs. 60,000/- excluding service tax, electricity, and water charges.
- The plaintiff owns two plots admeasuring 525 sq. yds bearing Municipal No.1-A and 1-B in Block No.19, Shakti Nagar, Delhi.
- The defendant’s predecessor installed a Transformer in the suit premises without legal authority or consent to supply electricity to the tenant, which was not removed despite repeated requests from the plaintiff.
- The possession of the suit property was handed over to the tenant who eventually surrendered it to the plaintiff in 2012.
- The plaintiff filed a suit for Mandatory Injunction and Recovery of Damages against the defendant for failing to remove the unauthorized Transformer.
- The electricity connections installed in the suit premises were disconnected by the defendant in 2012 after the tenant vacated the premises.
- The plaintiff filed a Writ Petition directing the defendant to remove the Transformer, which was admitted to have been installed without legal authority by the defendant.
- No electricity is currently supplied from the unauthorized Transformer to the plaintiff’s property.
Issue
- OPD 20 – Additional Issue: Whether the suit is not maintainable being CPC?
- OPP (iii) – Whether the present suit is barred under Section 10 CPC in view of the pendency of Writ Petition (C) No.8098/2014 filed by the plaintiff?
- OPD (iv) – Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation?
- OPD (v) – Whether the erstwhile tenant of the plaintiff Legacy Hotel & Infra Projects Ltd. is a necessary and property part? If so its effect?
- OPD (vi) – Relief.
Arguments
- The plaintiff claimed that no amount is payable by the defendant for rent or usage of a small piece of land in the premises.
- The plaintiff’s claim of cause of action arising on 02.05.2014 was not supported by facts in the affidavit of evidence provided.
- The plaintiff suffered monetary loss due to the forcible continuation of the transformer on the premises, depriving lawful use of the property.
- The suit premises are on a road notified under MPD-21 as Mixed Land Use with showrooms of branded companies nearby.
- The plaintiff mentioned owning approximately 27000 sq. ft. property with a rent rate of Rs.40 per sq. ft. and highlighted parking issues.
- Defendant contended the transformer was installed with consent and the suit is time-barred based on prior agitations for removal.
- The defendant argued for compensation for transformer removal, which the plaintiff deemed false and frivolous.
- Plaintiff admitted cause of action arising in 2012, indicating the suit was filed beyond the limitation period.
- The defendant mentioned other dates of alleged cause of action in 2013 and 2014, questioning the delayed filing in 2017.
- Defendant bore installation cost as per agreement, and the plaintiff is not liable for removal or relocation expenses.
- Non-joining of Legacy Hotels and Infra Projects Ltd. as a party was raised as an issue by the defendant.
- Legal precedence emphasizing strict adherence to the law of limitation was cited in defense.
- The defendant argues that the tenant Legacy Hotels & Infra Project Ltd. is a necessary party to the suit.
- The defendant denies liability for damages claiming the plaintiff failed to mitigate the loss.
- The defendant refutes earning huge profits from supplying electricity through the Transformer.
- The Plaintiff is accused of intentionally misrepresenting facts as per the Apex Court’s judgment in Dalip Singh vs State of UP.
- The defendant claims plaintiff agreed to bear the cost of shifting the Transformer but failed to pay when asked.
- The defendant asserts that the Transformer was installed legally with proper authorization.
- The suit jurisdiction is questioned under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as per previous court decisions.
- The plaintiff has concealed that the management of both the plaintiff and the tenant were the same.
- The defendant claims the plaintiff explicitly consented to the installation of the Transformer.
- The main contention is on who should bear the cost of relocating the Transformer and arranging the alternate site.
- The defendant states the suit is without merit and should be dismissed.
- The plaintiff had also filed a Writ Petition seeking the same relief of Transformer removal in 2014.
- The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s deliberate concealment of facts and the tenant being a subsidiary influence the case.
- The plaintiff has been requesting removal of the Transformer and has filed a Writ Petition in 2014.
- The responsibility for providing space for Transformer installation lies with the consumer as per DERC Regulations.
- The plaintiff’s defense is seen as an afterthought by the defendant.
- The tenant only had rights of occupation during its tenancy period and holds no further liabilities for the premises.
- The request for removal of the Transformer extends to seeking user/occupation charges which are beyond the Adjudicating Authority’s jurisdiction.
Analysis
- The defendant is held liable to pay user and occupation charges/ damages to the plaintiff since 03.11.2014.
- There is no Regulation requiring the plaintiff to pay for removal of the Transformer or provide an alternate site for installation.
- The plaintiff denied that Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta was their employee during the relevant period.
- The Legacy Hotel & Infra Projects Ltd., a subsidiary of the plaintiff, had two electricity connections for the tenanted premises.
- The plaintiff is not drawing electricity from the Transformer installed by the defendant.
- Negotiations occurred between the parties from 2012 to 2014, leading to the filing of the Writ Petition in 2014.
- The Coordinate Bench determined that the defendant had no right to occupy the plaintiff’s property with the Transformer.
- The plaintiff cannot be burdened with providing an alternate site for the defendant’s Transformer.
- The defendant has been supplying electricity to other consumers in the neighborhood without payment.
- The defendant’s insistence on the plaintiff bearing the cost of removing the Transformer is not valid.
- Defendant does not have unfettered right to fix transformers in private premises solely for business purposes.
- Plaintiff entitled to have transformer removed from personal property of plaintiff.
- Defendant to remove transformer at own cost and arrange alternate site within six months.
- Plaintiff entitled to damages – enhancement by 10% on monthly rent yearly till payment, with 6% interest.
- Legal relationship between holding company and wholly owned subsidiary explained; defendant liable for removal of transformer at own cost and expense.
- Previous cases cited where electricity providers resisted removal of transformers on grounds of hardship and service obligations.
- The owner of the land or successor in interest can apply for shifting an existing electric line or electrical plant on their land for genuine purposes.
- The application must be submitted to the Licensee for approval.
- The Licensee will inspect the site and assess the technical feasibility of the proposed shifting.
- Permission to shift the electric line or electrical plant will only be granted if the proposed shifting is technically feasible, the owner of the land consents in writing, and necessary permissions for road cutting or right of way are obtained.
- The owner of the land must arrange for an alternate right of way if needed for the shifting.
- The rates of the property have escalated since 2014.
- It is important to consider the changing rates of the property.
- The ratio of the property rates is a key factor in this judgement.
- The increase in property rates cannot be overlooked.
- The rising property rates need to be taken into account.
Decision
- Defendant is held liable to remove the Transformer at its own cost within six months from the date of judgment.
- Plaintiff entitled to user and occupation charges/damages of Rs. 7,000 per month from 01.03.2014 with a 10% annual enhancement on the rent amount.
- Defendant to pay interest at 6% per annum on the due amount.
- In case of failure to remove the Transformer within six months, defendant to pay damages of Rs. 5 lakhs per month to plaintiff until removal.
Case Title: JAI HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. Vs. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. (2024:DHC:4337)
Case Number: CS(OS)-112/2017
