The right to disconnect the supply for non-payment of dues is independent of the right to recover the dues by filing a suit, and therefore the limitation period for filing a suit is irrelevant.

K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kancheepuram on 27. 2. 1986 in A. S. No. 1 of 1984, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif at kancheepuram on 5. 5. 1983 in O. S. No. 807 of 1981.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the present second appeal.

( 3 ) THE suit is filed for declaration that the demand made by the defendants for Rs. 2,500. 95 in their letters dated 23. 7. 1981 and 15. 8. 1981 are illegal and ultra vires and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the plaintiffs service connection No. 249. According to the plaintiff he is the owner of the premises No. 254a, raja Street, Wallajabad and he purchased it from one Deivasigamani Achari by a registered sale deed dated 24. 6. 1967 and ever since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the property as the owner. The vendor was having an electric service connection in S. C. 696, in the said house for his machine and after he sold the house, he vacated the house and also removed the machinery. Thereafter the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the house and paying the charges. There is no machinery in house No. 254a, after 24. 6. 1967. The plaintiff is living in his residential house No. 46, Raja Street, Wallajabad and this house has a separate electric connection in S. C. No. 249 and he is paying the usual consumption charges. While so, the plaintiff was surprised to receive a letter dated 23. 7. 1981 from the second defendant claiming a sum of Rs. 2,500. 95 due by the plaintiffs vendor for the period of January, 1970 to June, 1976 and stating that the said sum has to be paid in instalments. The plaintiff received the bill dated 15. 8. 1981 claiming the first instalment of Rs. 400. 95 alongwith other consumption charges and threatening to disconnect the service of the plaintiff for non payment of the said bill amount. According to the plaintiff the entire demand was illegal and baseless. He also pleaded that the claim from January. 1971 was barred by limitation. He also further contended that the service connection No. 249 cannot be disconnected for non payment of charges in service connection No. 696 and under the guise of demand, service connection No. 249 cannot be disconnected. Hence this suit.

( 4 ) WHILE opposing the said pleadings, the tamil Nadu Electricity Board contended that it was true that a notice was issued to the plaintiff demanding a sum of Rs. 2,500.

25. But the claim of the plaintiff that the Boards claim was barred by limitation was not correct. According to the defendants, the original owner was having two service connections and due to non payment of charges in S. C. No. 696 it was disconnected by the Board. The consumer was liable to pay annual minimum charges though the service connection was disconnected, till the consumer expresses his unwillingness or willingness to discontinue the supply of energy. There was no request from the service holder upto 1974-75. The agreement period was over and till that time also the defendants are entitled to claim annual minimum charges. Therefore the said sum as included in the bill in question, which was also standing in the name of Deivasigamani Achari, was maintainable. On 25. 7. 1981 itself the defendants had sent a letter to the service holder and a copy of the same to the plaintiff and the failure to respond to the said notice would entitle the defendants to disconnect the power supply. Since there is another life service, the claim of bar of limitation cannot be maintained. It is also further pleaded that the suit was barred under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

( 5 ) ON a consideration of said pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the demand by the Electricity Board was sustainable and with the result