$~47 
*	IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI

Date of Decision: 27th February, 2026
+ 	CM(M) 1138/2025 & CM APPL. 68427/2025
	RANDHIR KUMAR SINGH				.....Petitioner
Through:	Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Ms. Neelampreet, Mr. Abhiroop Rathore and Mr. Sukhvir Singh, Advocates along with Petitioner in person.
				versus
	MANJEET SOLANKI					.....Respondent
Through:	Mr. Mohit Kumar Sharma, Advocate along with Respondent in person.
	Mr. Sharique Hussain and Ms. Kirti Garg, Advocate for R-BSES (Through VC).
	CORAM:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

ORDER (Oral)
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.
1.	This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode. 
2.	The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 assailing the order dated 26thApril, 2025, passed by the learned Trial Court in CS SCJ No. 1843/2024, whereby the application of the petitioner/ plaintiff for restoration of the electricity has been dismissed.
3.	I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4.	Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing severe hardship on account of disconnection of electricity at the said premises, which has remained disconnected since 17th September, 2024. It is further submitted that the petitioner is running a coaching centre in the said premises and, due to the disconnection of electricity, he is unable to carry on his classes, thereby adversely affecting his livelihood.
5.	Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not executed any Rent Agreement with the respondent, thereby resulting in difficulties faced by the respondent in completing the police verification of the tenant.	It is further argued that the petitioner has failed to pay the rent since September 2024. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the respondent will initiate appropriate proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from the said premises.
6.	Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the said premises is still in possession of the petitioner, and also considering the fact that due to non-supply of the electricity, the petitioner is facing difficulty in running his coaching centre, this Court is of the opinion that electricity ought be restored in the said premises by the respondent.
7.	Accordingly, it is directed that electricity be restored in the said premises by the respondent, within a period of seven (07) days from today, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay the monthly electricity charges for consumption of electricity as recorded through the sub-meter installed in the said premises, within a period of three (03) days from the date of demand raised by the respondent. If there is any default on behalf of the parties, then the parties are free to approach the learned Trial Court to redress their grievance which shall be considered in accordance with law.
8.	Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of the relief as prayed for in the present petition having been granted, and no further relief or direction is required, and it is prayed that the present petition be disposed of accordingly. 
9.	It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
10.	Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the above-stated terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.



RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2026/nd/ik





CM(M) 1138/2025	                                                                             Page 3 of 3