The Delhi High Court held that access to electricity is a fundamental right under Article 21 and cannot be denied to a person in lawful possession of a property. The Court ordered BSES to restore power without insisting on a landlord’s NOC despite a pending tenancy dispute.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has clearly ruled that access to electricity is a basic and essential right linked to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court said that electricity cannot be denied to a person who is in lawful possession of a property merely because there is a pending dispute between the landlord and the tenant.
Justice Mini Pushkarna made this important observation while directing BSES Rajdhani Power Limited to immediately restore electricity supply to the third floor of a residential property located in West Delhi.
The Court specifically held that the electricity company cannot insist on a no objection certificate (NOC) from the landlords when the tenant is still legally occupying the premises.
While passing the order, the Court observed,
“Electricity is a basic necessity and an integral part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, as long as the petitioner is in possession of the property in question, he cannot be deprived of the same,”
the Court said.
The Court further emphasised that access to electricity is not a luxury but a basic requirement of dignified living. It added that no person can be expected to live without essential facilities required for daily life, including electricity.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by Maiki Jain, who stated that he had been a tenant in lawful possession of the property since 2016 under registered lease deeds.
The property is situated in New Delhi, and Jain had been residing on the third floor as a tenant for several years.
According to the petitioner, electricity supply to the premises was suddenly disconnected in November 2025, even though all outstanding electricity dues were cleared.
Jain informed the Court that the electricity meter was registered in the name of the landlords, but electricity had always been supplied to the tenanted portion, and bills were regularly paid by him.
The petitioner explained that due to temporary financial difficulty, he could not clear electricity dues for the months of September and October 2025. As a result, electricity supply was disconnected, and the meter was removed on November 28, 2025.
Jain further stated that he cleared all outstanding dues on the very same day, but despite this, BSES refused to restore electricity supply.
The power company insisted that Jain must submit a no objection certificate from the landlords. However, the landlords refused to issue any such NOC.
In the meantime, the landlords filed a civil suit against Jain seeking recovery of possession of the property, arrears of rent, mesne profits, and a permanent injunction.
In response, the petitioner filed a counter-claim alleging that the landlords were deliberately cutting off basic amenities, including water supply, to force him to vacate the premises.
Apart from these civil proceedings, Jain also approached the Delhi High Court by filing the present writ petition, seeking immediate restoration of electricity supply.
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited opposed the petition before the High Court. The power company argued that the electricity connection was officially registered in the name of the landlords and that supply was disconnected due to non-payment of dues.
BSES also informed the Court that it had received instructions from the landlords not to restore electricity supply to the third floor of the property. It further submitted that the electricity meter was under the landlords’ lock and key, and therefore restoration of supply was not possible without their cooperation.
The High Court firmly rejected these arguments. The Court held that the existence of a pending landlord-tenant dispute cannot be used as a reason to deprive a person of electricity, which is a basic amenity.
The Court made it clear that unless a competent court passes an eviction order, the possession of the tenant cannot be treated as unlawful.
While recording its findings, the Court stated,
“Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, it is to be noted that a pending landlord and tenant dispute cannot be the basis for depriving electricity, which is a basic amenity…. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner 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 Court held.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court directed BSES Rajdhani Power Limited to restore electricity supply from the existing meter without insisting on any NOC from the landlords. The Court also directed the landlords to fully cooperate with the restoration process and not create any obstruction.
The Court further ordered that if the landlords resist or obstruct the restoration of electricity supply, BSES would be at liberty to seek police assistance to carry out the Court’s directions.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: Tenant Can Never Become Owner of Rented Property
It was also directed that officials of BSES should visit the premises on December 19 for restoring the electricity supply. The Court instructed the petitioner to remain present at the site and comply with all commercial requirements, including payment of future electricity bills on time.
At the same time, the Court clarified that BSES would have the right to disconnect electricity supply again if the petitioner fails to pay electricity dues in the future.
The petitioner, Maiki Jain, was represented before the Court by advocates Vishal Saxena, Meenakshi Garg and Rashi Aggarwal. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited was represented by advocates Sharique Hussain and Kirti Garg.
Read More Reports On Tenant-Landlord Disputes
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
