Under Sec.17(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, a landlord can be directed to restore an amenity only if the termination was done by the landlord.

An order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority namely VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, affirming an order of dismissal passed by the Rent Controller namely XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in RCOP No.964 of 2005 filed under Sec.17(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for restoration of amenity, is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.

2.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.

3.The case of the revision petitioners/tenants before the authorities below was that they became tenants in the year 1996 under the previous owner in respect of the shop premises for non-residential purposes; that in the year 2002, the property was purchased by the present owner who is the first respondent herein; that as per the agreement between the parties, there was an electricity service connection for the supply of electric energy to the premises; that there was a meter inside the premises of the respondents; that the landlord used to send a chit calculating the electric energy actually consumed by the tenants, by entering the meter reading; that the payment was used to be made on or before 15th of every month; but, in the instant case, as usual, it was not done by him; that the landlord also removed the fuse carrier on 15. 2005; thereby, he has actually terminated the amenity, and under the circumstances, the application was brought forth before the Rent Controller. Added further in the course of the application that the monthly rental agreed was Rs.4,500/-; that besides that, a sum of Rs.3,500/- is being paid towards amenity charges, thus totaling to Rs.8,000/-; that initially, there was a security deposit of Rs.3.25 lakhs made, out of which Rs.2.25 lakhs was paid on 15. 2002 itself; that the first respondent filed a RCOP for eviction on the ground of willful default and additional accommodation; that the same was also pending; that in that proceedings, this contention was also raised; that apart from that, while the first respondent threatened them to vacate, the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.3079 of 2005 for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from evicting them from the premises; that interim injunction application was also pending; that under the circumstances, he has now disconnected the electricity service connection deliberately in order to force them to vacate from the property, and hence, it has become necessary to restore the amenity of the electricity supply to the shop portion in the petition mentioned premises.

4.The application was resisted by the landlord. While denying all the contentions in respect of the restoration of the amenity, he would state that the petitioners had not paid the rents for the past 8 months; that they have not even paid the electricity consumption charges during that period; that a separate meter and electricity service connection were given to the petitioners; that for the month of May 2005, the bill was to be paid on or before 15th May, 2005; that the petitioners never cared to pay the electricity charges; that the Officers of the Electricity Board disconnected the service connection on 20.5.2005; that the first respondent never disconnected the electricity service connection to the petitioners premises, and under the circumstances, the petition was to be dismissed.

5.The Rent Controller, on enquiry, dismissed the application, and the appeal by the tenants was also dismissed. Under the circumstances, now this revision has been brought forth before this Court.

6.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the revision petitioners, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, all the circumstances were brought to the notice of the lower authorities that there was a security deposit of Rs.3.25 lakhs; that as per the decision of the Supreme Court, he could carry only one month advance, and the balance has got to be adjusted towards the rental; that there was no rental default; that this plea was rai