Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3471
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN, J.
M.L. Mallika & Another
Versus
Assistant Engineer, Tami Nadu Electricity Board, Rangarajapuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai & Another
W.P. NO. 11657 OF 2012 & M.P. NO. 1 OF 2012
Decided On : 08-08-2012
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:M.L. Ramesh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 - P. Gunaraj, R2 - S.R. Raghunathan, Advocate.
Ratio
When a tenant faces problem from his landlord in getting electricity supply, he could request separate connection in his name for that premise inspite of the fact that there is already a connection available to that unit and in such an event, the Electricity Board is bound to consider the application.
Headnote:(A)Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, ……………...-Reg. 27(4)-Electricity-Connection-Tenant-Right-Petitioner, a tenent in a shop had requested a separate electricity connection to his shop as the landlord had removed the fuse-When the respondent refused to provide separate connection on the ground that for a single unit of a premise only one connection could be provided and there was already a connection to the said shop which was in operation, petitioner filed a writ petition in that regard-Parties stood by their stands-Held, when a tenant faced problem from his landlord in getting electricity supply, he could request separate connection in his name for that premise inspite of the fact that there was already a connection available to that unit and in such an event, the Electricity Board was bound to consider the application-Respondent was directed to consider the application in the light of the legal position and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties-Writ petition was ordered accordingly.
(B)Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, ..-Reg. 27(4)-Electricity-Connection-Tenant-Right-When a tenant faces problem from his landlord in getting electricity supply, he could request separate connection in his name for that premise inspite of the fact that there is already a connection available to that unit and in such an event, the Electricity Board is bound to consider the application.
In this case, it is not the case of the petitioners that their service connection is already disconnected by the first respondent; on the other hand, it is disconnected at the instance of the second respondent-landlord, by removing fuse. If that is so, it is for the petitioners who are intended to have separate service connections if the second respondent-landlord is not willing to provide electricity service connections to the petitioners-tenants, to go before the first respondent and the first respondent is under the obligation to invoke Regulation 27(4) of the said Code and after taking necessary indemnity bond/security deposit and also an affidavit of undertaking from the consumers/petitioners for any damages, etc., to the TNEB in future, the electricity supply service connection shall be provided by the first respondent. Para 18
Act Referred
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CODE : Reg..27(4), R.27(4)
1. Heard Mr.M.L.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the second respondent.
2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, by calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings Lr.No.AE/O & M/Rangarajapuram/General/D.No.71/11, dated 26.6.2011, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to provide electricity connection to the petitioners in Shop Nos.E & F, at Old No.25, New No.43, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24.
3. According to the petitioners, they are the tenants and having shops in the above mentioned address under the second respondent-landlord with an agreed monthly rent of Rs.600/-, which excludes electricity charges. The second respondent-landlord filed a petition for fixation of fair rent and the same has been ordered. The petitioners have filed appeals in R.C.A.Nos.616 and 191 of 2004, which were pending on the file of VII Small Causes Court, Chennai and on 7.3.2012, the fair rent appeal had been disposed of and the petitioners had been taking steps to file C.R.P. against the said order.
4. While so, when the petitioners are in occupation of the premises in question, at the instance of the second respondent, the first respondent disconnected the electricity supply to the petitioners' shops on 11.11.2010 and the main control box of the electricity connection is with the second respondent. The second respondent had cut the connection to the shops of both the petitioners. Because of the disconnection of the electricity connection, the petitioners had been put to irreparable loss and hardship. Though the petitioners requested the second respondent to restore the electricity connection, the same was not considered and therefore, without any option, the petitioners lodged a Police complaint before R2 Kodambakkam Police Station on 12.12.2010. As there was no fruitful result from the Police complaint, the petitioners filed rent control petitions in R.C.O.P.Nos.37 and 38 of 2011 for restoration of the amenities, namely the electricity connection to their shops. In the said case, the petitioners filed interlocutory applications for interim restoration of the amenity under Section 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The learned Rent Controller, on contest, allowed the petition in M.P.Nos.69 and 110 of 2011 on 17.2.2011. The second respondent has not restored the electricity connection.
5. Having found that there is no other remedy available to the petitioners, the petitioners moved the first respondent by applying separate electricity service connections after obtaining orders from the Rent Control Court, once again, the petitioners requested for a service connection in their name on 11.3.2011 with a requisition letter on the same day. Pursuant to the same, the first respondent has passed the impugned order rejected the claim of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have no other efficacious and effective remedy except to revoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. The challenge made to the above impugned order is based on the provisions contained under Regulation 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, which provides that even if there is no consent from the landlord, if the occupier is in occupation of the premises, he can apply and the first respondent is under obligation to consider the separate electricity connection on getting necessary affidavit of undertaking, security bond and indemnity bond from them and without doing so, the first respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioners.
7. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit inter-alia stating that the writ petitioners are tenants in the above shops and the second respondent-landlord is the owner of the shops and they are running the business in the name and style of M/s.Bobby
