{"id":377906,"date":"2026-03-10T17:00:41","date_gmt":"2026-03-10T11:30:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=377906"},"modified":"2026-03-10T16:56:28","modified_gmt":"2026-03-10T11:26:28","slug":"del-hc-restoration-of-electricity-supply-to-tenant-coaching-centre","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/10\/del-hc-restoration-of-electricity-supply-to-tenant-coaching-centre\/","title":{"rendered":"Relief for tenant as Delhi High Court directs restoration of electricity at coaching centre in landlord-tenant dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Disclaimer:<\/span> This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In a petition filed under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> challenging the trial court’s order dated 26 April 2025 which dismissed the petitioner’s application seeking restoration of electricity supply at his coaching centre, a Single Judge Bench of Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J., disposed of the petition with the direction that electricity supply to the premises be restored within seven days subject to payment of electricity charges by the petitioner.<\/p>\n

In the instant matter, the petitioner was in possession of the premises and was running a coaching centre there. Electricity supply to the premises had been disconnected since 17 September 2024 causing severe hardship and prevented him from conducting classes, thereby adversely affecting his livelihood.<\/p>\n

The dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent concerning the use and occupation of the premises. The respondent contended that the petitioner had not executed any rent agreement, which created difficulties in completing the police verification of the tenant. It was also alleged that the petitioner had not paid rent since September 2024, and the respondent expressed the intention to initiate eviction proceedings.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved by the trial court’s refusal to order restoration of electricity, the petitioner invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.<\/p>\n

The Court considered the factual circumstances surrounding the dispute and noted that the petitioner continued to remain in possession of the premises and due to non-supply of the electricity, the petitioner was facing difficulty in running his coaching centre. The Court opined that electricity ought to be restored in the said premises by the respondent.<\/p>\n

The Court directed that:<\/p>\n