According to reports, the landlord discovered that electricity was being illegally diverted from his main property line into a rental unit without authorization. Outraged and claiming he had been paying inflated bills for months, he decided to take matters into his own hands. Armed with a set of tools and a dose of frustration, he reportedly entered the property’s electrical area and disconnected the lines himself.
But the tenants saw things differently. They allege that they were left without power for days, ruining food, damaging appliances, and creating unsafe living conditions—particularly for a family with young children. Within a week, they filed a lawsuit accusing the landlord of unlawful interference, negligence, and “intentional infliction of hardship.” Their attorney argues that even if the power had been tampered with, the landlord had no legal right to shut it off without a court order.
Legal experts say the case highlights a growing tension between landlords and tenants as utility costs soar. “You can’t take justice into your own hands,” one attorney explained. “Even if power is being used illegally, only the utility company or a court order can authorize a disconnection. Otherwise, it’s considered harassment or unlawful eviction.”
The landlord, however, insists he was simply protecting his property. “They were literally stealing from me,” he told reporters. “I didn’t hurt anyone—I just stopped paying for electricity they weren’t entitled to.” He claims that the total amount of stolen electricity over several months exceeded $2,000, a figure that has left him financially strained.
The case has stirred strong reactions online, with some social media users siding with the landlord’s frustration, while others argue that his decision crossed the line. “If someone’s stealing, they should face consequences—but shutting off their power isn’t the answer,” one commenter wrote. Another countered, “So landlords can get sued for stopping theft now? This is insane.”
As the lawsuit moves forward, the court will need to decide whether the landlord’s actions were a reasonable response to theft or an unlawful act that endangered tenants. If he loses, the $35,000 in damages could include compensation for emotional distress, spoiled goods, and temporary relocation costs.
Beyond the courtroom, the story serves as a warning for property owners everywhere: even when you’re right, the law may require you to go through the proper channels. A single frustrated decision can quickly spiral into a costly legal battle.
In the end, both sides claim to be victims—one of theft, the other of neglect—and the verdict will likely spark further debate about where justice truly lies when common sense and the law collide.