SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Mad) 3687

High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN, J.
Josephine Kala Rani
Versus
Superintending Engineer, Valluvarkottam & Others
Writ Petition No. 15510 of 2012
Decided On : 29-08-2012

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sirajuddin, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3, G. Vasudevan, R4, M/s. C. Prasanna Venkatesh, Advocates.

The court emphasized the importance of resolving disputes related to unauthorized usage and landlord-tenant issues through the appropriate legal proceedings before making decisions on restoration of electricity service connections.

Headnote:

Electricity Service Connection - Tenant's Rights - The Electricity Act 2003, Section 135 - Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code 2004 - The court directed the electricity board to consider the tenant's claim for restoration of electricity connection, subject to the result of pending rent control proceedings and civil suit.

Fact of the Case:

The tenant, running a women's hostel, had her electricity service connection disconnected for unauthorized commercial usage. She sought restoration of the connection, claiming she had paid the fines and compounding charges. The landlord objected, stating the premises were leased only for residential use.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the tenant's unauthorized commercial usage and the landlord's objections were issues to be decided in the pending rent control proceedings and civil suit. The court directed the electricity board to consider the tenant's claim for restoration of electricity connection, subject to the outcome of the pending legal proceedings.

Issues: Unauthorized commercial usage of electricity, landlord-tenant dispute, restoration of electricity service connection.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tenant's unauthorized commercial usage and the landlord's objections were to be decided in the pending legal proceedings. The court directed the electricity board to consider the tenant's claim for restoration of electricity connection, subject to the outcome of the pending legal proceedings.

Final Decision: The court directed the electricity board to consider the tenant's claim for restoration of electricity connection, subject to the result of pending rent control proceedings and civil suit.

Judgment :-

1. Writ petitioner, who is a tenant under the 4th respondent, has come before this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to restore the electricity service connection bearing No: 333-012-1055 at No: 9, C-2 Adwave Towers, 1st floor, South Boag Road, Chennai – 600 017, which was disconnected by them on 13.06.2012.

2. According to the petitioner, she is a tenant in the above said premises. The landlord of the property is causing nuisance to her without assigning any reason, with an intention of evicting her by his henchmen. He has disconnected the water connection. Therefore, she has filed a suit for an injunction restraining the landlord and his henchmen claiming through him from evicting her without due process of law. She has further stated that few months back, she had accommodated about 10 working girls in her residence and she has also applied and got registered vide Registration No: 592/2012 dated 04.04.2012. After the registraiton is over, all of a sudden, the respondents with his workmen entered into the premises and without any notice, disconnected the electricity service connection. The respondents also demanded the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- as compounding charges and a sum of Rs. 76,000/- as fine. Petitioner claims that she has paid the sum of Rs. 12,000/- vide Receipt No: 2114655 and Rs. 76,000/- vide Receipt No: 21144776. It is also stated that a suit is also pending against the landlord in O.S. No: 1926 of 2012 and I.A. No: 5165 of 2012 before the III Assistant City Civil Court. With the landlord's permission, the petitioner is running the women's hostel. The landlord ought to have given instruction that the tariff for residential purpose is not converted into commercial purpose. The landlord did not bring anything to the tenant's notice and she is not aware of the same. While so, the petitioner explained the above said reasons, the respondents, without prior information, have disconnected the electricity service connection and demanded a huge sum from the petitioner. They have also not taken any steps to consider her request. The action of the respondent in cutting the electricity without any prior information leads to miscarriage of justice. Finding no other effective remedy, petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

3. The 3rd respondent had filed their counter and stated that at the outset the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner being a consumer is bound by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code 2004 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code 2004 and as such estopped from disputing the demand. The electricity service connection bearing No: 222-012-1055 was effected under TF-1A (Domestic Tariff) to Door No: 9, South Boag Road, Chennai – 17, in the name of Thiru.S.N.Eisenhower for domestic purpose. That on 13.06.2012, the service connection was inspeced by Enforcement Wing of Electricity Board and found that the energy from the S.C. No: 222-012-1055 is used for ladies hostel run by the writ petitioner in the said premises. The petitioner utilised the energy from the above service connection for commercial purposes i.e. the petitioner used the electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised and immediately, the service connection was disconnected. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 12,000/- vide Receipt No: CHC 222IA IS 925 dated 13.06.2012 towards compounding charges and she has also paid a sum of Rs. 76,131/- vide Receipt No: CHC 222 IA IS 1046 dated 15.06.2012 towards extra levy for unauthorised usage of electricity. As per the Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135 Sub Section 23 AA (4), the service connection shall be reconnected only after the cause of theft is removed. But the petitioner has not removed the cause of theft. The owner of the service connection has not submitted his application for change of tariff and hence the service connection is not yet reconnected. Therefore, they prayed f
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top