Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 1825
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. RAJA
M.K.M. Aboobacker
Versus
The Chief Engineer, Pondicherry
W.P.No.27505 of 2004 & WPMP.No.39030 of 2004
Decided On : 20-04-2010
For the Petitioner:S. Sadasharam, Advocate.
For the Respondent:N. Mala, Government Advocate (P).
Ratios
a. When a premise is leased out, the landlord had to intimate the same to the electricity board in the prescribed manner to save himself from the possibility of default in payment of the electricity charges by the tenant.
b. The landlord cannot escape from his liability to pay for the consumption of electricity by his tenant by merely by addressing a letter to the electricity board but without following the procedure prescribed regarding the intimation of tenancy.
Headnote:(A)Electricity Act, 2003(36 of 2003)-Sec.50, 56-Electricity-Supply-Tenant-Arrears-Recovery-Disconnection-Lease- Intimation-Procedure-Failure-Effect-Petitioner had leased out his industrial premises to a tenant who committed default in paying the rent-Petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent asking it to disconnect electricity to the premises and stated that in case of any default in future, petitioner would not be liable-Respondent did not disconnect the electricity after the receipt of the letter-Later, tenant vacated the premise by leaving huge arrears and the respondent sought to collect it from the petitioner by disconnecting the electricity-Petitioner sought for restoration of the electricity and contended that as he had already requested the respondent to disconnect the supply which was not acted upon, the petitioner should not be held liable for the arrears-Respondent contended that the petitioner did not approach the respondent with the copy of the lease deed and in the prescribed manner and so it could not recover it from the tenants-Held, when a premise was leased out, the landlord had to inform the same to the electricity board alongwith a copy of the lease deed and on failure, the landlord shall be liable to the consumption of the electricity by the tenant-As the petitioner did not inform the factum of lease in the prescribed manner, he could not be absolved from his liability-Writ petition was dismissed.
(B)Electricity Act, 2003(36 of 2003)-Sec.50, 56-Electricity-Supply-Tenant-Arrears- Recovery-Disconnection-Lease- Intimation-Procedure-Failure-Effect-When a premise is leased out, the landlord had to intimate the same to the electricity board in the prescribed manner to save himself from the possibility of default in payment of the electricity charges by the tenant- The landlord cannot escape from his liability to pay for the consumption of electricity by his tenant by merely by addressing a letter to the electricity board but without following the procedure prescribed regarding the intimation of tenancy.
A mere reading of clause 73 of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity clearly makes out the case of the respondents that as and when the landlord enters into any lease agreement with any tenant/lessee, it is the bounden duty of the landlord to mark a copy of the agreement to the Electricity Board so as to enable it to collect the monthly electricity consumption charges directly from the tenant. In the event of not complying with clause 73 of the terms and conditions of the supply of electricity, it is too late for the landlord to complain that the Electricity Board has allowed the tenant to go out without paying the arrears of electricity charges. Para 14
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Chief Engineer, Pondicherry Electricity Board, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent board to restore the power supply to the industrial premises bearing door No.A-1 Shed, Industrial Estate, Thattanchavadi, Pondicherry in Service Connection No.1-21-41-01.
2. The case of the petitioner before this court is that he is the absolute owner of the industrial premises bearing door No.A-1 Shed, Industrial Estate, Thattanchavadi, Pondicherry. The petitioner had obtained three phase service connection in his capacity as proprietor in the name of M/s.TRUST WELL for the supply of electricity from the respondent Electricity Board. Subsequently, the petitioners industrial premises was leased out to one M/s.WELCORD Electronics Limited represented by its Director Mr.Prasanna kumar Bhutoria, under a lease deed dated 15.01.2000.
.3. By virtue of the above said lease deed executed by the petitioner in favour of M/s.WELCORD Electronics Limited, the lessee was carrying on business of manufacture of electrical goods.
.Subsequently, the lessee committed default in the matter of payment of monthly rent which accumulated into lakhs of rupees and, therefore, the petitioner had been demanding directly to the company/lessee to vacate and hand over possession of land. Though the lessee was promising to pay the arrears of rent, vacate and hand over possession, he was delaying the process of vacating the premises for about one year.Therefore, the petitioner sent a letter in the month of June, 2004 to the lessee M/s.WELCORD Electronics Limited. The lessee, without informing the petitioner, clandestinely vacated the industrial premises, removing all machineries and materials and without clearing the arrears of rent. Unfortunately, on enquiry, the petitioner came to know in August 2003 that there was a due of Rs.60,000/- on account of arrears of electricity consumption charges payable to the respondent Electricity Board.
4. When the petitioner came to know about the default committed by the lessee in payment of arrears, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 04.09.2003 to the Joint Engineer, Thattanchavadi Industrial Estate, Pondicherry, requesting them to collect the arrears of electricity charges from the lessee and also informed the respondent Electricity Board that he cannot be held responsible for the default committed by the lessee towards arrears of electricity charges.
5. In view of the default committed by the lessee, even after the letter sent by the petitioner, the respondent Board failed to disconnect the power supply to the lessee for reasons best known to them. Therefore, once again on 04.09.2004, the petitioner submitted a letter to the respondent explaining the situation and requested them to restore the power supply, since the power supply was already disconnected in June 2004 immediately after M/s.WELCORD Electronics Limited clandestinely vacated the industrial shed so as to enable the petitioner to enter into an greement to lease out the petitioners industrial premises to Dinamalar Newspaper Company from 010. 2004 onwards. As there was no response, a legal notice was issued on 01.04.1994 to the respondent board requesting to restore the power supply to the petitioners industrial premises. No response came from the respondent and they failed to issue any direction to the respondent Electricity Board to restore the power supply to the petitioners industrial premises.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, well in advance, even before the petitioners lessee/tenant vacated the premises of the petitioner had written a letter to the respondent board requesting them to collect the arrears of electricity consumption charges and in the alternative, request was also made to disconnect the electricity supply. Inspite of the letter, no action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner visited t
