Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010086882023 2025:GAU-AS:980-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/155/2023 SUNITA AGARWAL W/O BIKASH KUMAR GOEL, R/O B.G. ROAD, P.O. AND P.S.-SIVASAGAR, DIST.- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN- 785640 VERSUS 1: M/S SREE MAA MULTI KITCHEN AND RESTAURANT AND 4 ORS. A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OWNED AND REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR JIBAMONI KAKOTY, S/O LATE NAGENDRA NATH KAKOTY, R/O HOUSE NO. 31, PATARKUCHI, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI- 29, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 2:ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED A GOVT. OF ASSAM UNDERTAKING DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781009 DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM REP. HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3:THE SDO, ULUBARI ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION APDCL(LAR) ADDRESS- ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 4:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER ULUBARI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION APDCL (LAR) ADDRESS- ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 5:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, GED (C) APDCL (LAR) ADDRESS- ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Chamaria, Advocate. Mr. M.M. Zaman, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Alam, Advocate for respondent No.1. : Mr. S.P. Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Page No.# 2/3 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI 29.01.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) This writ appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 12.04.2023 passed in I.A. (C) No.999/2023 filed in WP(C) No.1773/2023, whereby the learned Single Judge issued a direction to the respondent Assam Power Distribution Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as “APDCL”) to provide temporary electricity connection to the private respondent No.1 herein subject to payment of all charges. The respondent No.1 herein is claiming himself to be the tenant of the appellant and is running a Bar in the rented premises owned by the appellant. It seems that a dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent No.1 regarding the tenancy and in relation to that, some proceedings are pending before the Civil Court. During the pendency of those proceedings before the Civil Court, the appellant has moved an application before the APDCL with a prayer to disconnect the electricity connection to the rented premises and at the request of the appellant, the APDCL disconnected the electricity connection of the rented premises. The respondent No.1 herein has approached the APDCL. However, the APDCL has refused to restore the electricity connection to the rented premises until and unless a No Objection Certificate (NOC) is obtained from the owner of the premises. The respondent No.1 has approached the Writ Court with a prayer to direct the respondent APDCL to give the electricity connection to the rented Page No.# 3/3 premises during the pendency of the Title Suit before the Civil Court. The learned Single Judge, while relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilip (Dead) through Lrs. -Vs- Satish & Ors., reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 810, has directed the respondent APDCL to provide temporary electricity connection to the rented premises in question subject to payment of all charges. The learned Single Judge has made it clear that the said direction will be operative till such orders are passed by the Trial Court in the Title Suit pending between the appellant and the respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, as a matter of fact, the tenancy between the appellant and the respondent No.1 has come to an end with the expiry of the agreement and, therefore, the respondent No.1 cannot be treated as a tenant. We have considered the said submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant only for rejection. The dispute regarding the tenancy between the appellant and the respondent No.1 is pending consideration before the Civil Court and, therefore, no such finding can be recorded at this stage that the respondent No.1 is not the tenant of the premises owned by the appellant. In view of the above fact situation, we are of the view that no case for interference is made out. Hence, this writ appeal challenging the order dated 12.04.2023 passed in I.A. (C) No.999/2023, whereby the WP(C) No.1773/2023 has also been disposed of, is dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant