Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.K. Varma, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Bipin Lal Khurana, learned counsel for defendants-petitioners/ landlords. No one appears on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents/ tenants.
(2.) In view of the office report dated 02.01.2018, service of notice upon the defendants-respondents No.1 and 2 is deemed sufficient. Facts:-
(3.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is a tenant occupying a shop in the house owned by the petitioners-landlords, at a monthly rent of Rs.1000/- since last more than 25 years. The plaintiff-respondent No.1/ tenant was being given amenity in the form of electricity supply by the defendants-petitioners. However, the electricity supply was obstructed and stopped by the defendants-petitioners to the plaintiff-respondent/ tenant in September, 2014. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff-respondent No.1/ tenant applied for an electricity connection vide Receipt No.1001864282 dated 20.12.2014. An Electricity Connection No.3009/207883 was allotted to him by the respondent No.2 i.e. the Electricity Department. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 informed the plaintiff-respondent/ tenant that objection to the electricity connection has been made by the defendants-petitioners/ landlord. Consequently, the sanctioned electricity connection was not given by the respondent No.2. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff-respondent No.1/ tenant filed a Misc. P.A. Case No.02 of 2015 (Jag Mohan Lal Khurana vs. Dr. Sudeep Saran and two others) before the Prescribed Authority/ Judge Small Cause Court, Bareilly which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 05.08.2017 directing as under:;