2006 Supreme(Mad) 500
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM
K.G.Ravindran - Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board - Respondents
Writ Petition No.5021 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.5390 of 2006
Decided On : 24 February 2006
Service connection to be provided by Board to tenant.
Headnote:Electricity (Supply) Act (54 of 1948), Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, Clause 27(4) -Application for service connection by tenant of premises - Tenant ready to indemnify and furnish security - Service connection to be provided by Board to tenant.
(PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to process the petitioner's application dated 02.02.2006 and supply energy to Shop Nos.1 & 2 for premises No.C-41, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040 in which the petitioner is a lawful tenant within a time stipulated by this Honourable Court.)
The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to process the petitioner's application dated 02.02.2006 to supply energy to Shop Nos.1 & 2 in premises No.C-41, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040, in which the petitioner is a lawful tenant, within a time stipulated by this Honourable Court.
2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Mr. G.Vasudevan learned counsel for the Electricity Board took notice on behalf of the respondent and took time to get instructions. Accordingly time was granted and the matter is listed today. Learned counsel for Tamil Nadu Electricity Board submitted that since there is objection from the landlord of the petitioner, the department has not granted electricity service connection to the petitioner's premises.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he was inducted into possession as a tenant in respect of 2 shops bearing Nos.1 and 2 measuring about 600 Sq. Ft. at No.C-41, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040 by one Sri Na. Gopalsamy, the then owner of the said premises, on a monthly rent of Rs.8,200/-. Electricity charges are being paid by the petitioner separately. It is the case of the petitioner that one D.Ravi and others have purchased the property from the then owner Mr.Na.Gopalsamy by a registered sale deed dated 01.09.2004. According to the petitioner, the same was not brought to his notice.
5. The petitioner's further case is that the present owners have filed a petition for eviction against him in Rent Control Petition (RCOP) No.545 of 2005 on the file of the XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, under Section 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act and another petition bearing RCOP No.828 of 2005 on the file of the same Court for fixing a fair rent. The petitioner has submitted his application to the respondent seeking Electricity service connection on 02.02.2006. In the said letter, on the same day, the respondent has pointed out certain defects and has directed the petitioner to produce certain documents within a period of seven days from that date. The documents directed to be produced are:
i) Owner consent letter.
ii) Owner property tax receipt with registered Deed of Sale.
iii) Lease agreement of date of year and it is also pointed out in that letter that the lease agreement is an unregistered one.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
7. As pointed out above, Mr. G.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that only because of the above said defects pointed out by the respondent, electricity service connection could not be provided to the petitioner's premises.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.M.Ganeshan submitted that already there is a strained relationship between the petitioner on the one hand and the landlord on the other hand due to the pendency of the above said two RCOPs. Learned counsel further submitted that the landlords will not give their consent letter, and they are in possession of the property tax receipts and the registered sale and lease documents. Since the landlords are in possession of the same, the petitioner is not in a position to produce it and the respondent cannot insist for the production of those documents. Learned counsel relying upon Clause 27 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, which reads as follows:
"(4) An intending consumer who is not the owner of the pre