Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 4149
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
Sheik Mathar
Versus
Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Rep. by Assistant Engineer, Chennai & Another
W.P.No.34121 of 2013
Decided On : 17-12-2013
For the Petitioner:V. Bhiman, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1, G. Vasudevan, Standing Counsel for TNEB.
The petitioner must establish a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought, and must follow proper procedures under the relevant laws.
Headnote:
Electricity Supply - Tenant's Rights - Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Section 17
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, sought mandamus to restore electricity supply to the shop, alleging that the landlord disconnected the supply to evict him. The court examined the provisions of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, and the petitioner's failure to follow proper procedures for seeking a separate service connection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a legal right for the issuance of mandamus, as he did not follow the prescribed procedures for seeking a separate service connection under the electricity laws.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had a legal right to seek mandamus for restoration of electricity supply and whether he followed the proper procedures for seeking a separate service connection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for the issuance of mandamus, the petitioner must establish a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought. The court also emphasized the need for the petitioner to follow proper procedures under the electricity laws for seeking a separate service connection.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioner.
1. As per the supporting affidavit to this writ petition, the petitioner is a tenant in respect of a shop at Door No.51, MTH Road, Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai – 62. According to the petitioner, when the landlord attempted to evict him forcibly, he has filed, O.S.No.53 of 2013 and obtained an interim injunction on 13.02.2013, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ambattur. The landlord, has filed RCOP No.16 of 2013 on the file of the same Court for eviction on the grounds of wilful default. Though, there was no arrears of rent, the landlord disconnected the electricity supply to the petitioner's shop and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file M.P.No.59 of 2013 in R.C.O.P.No.15 of 2013 directing the landlord for restoration of electricity supply.
2. It is the further case of the petitioner that vide order of the learned District Munsif, dated 30.04.2013 in M.P.No.59 of 2013, restoration of electricity supply was ordered. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though a representation dated 03.05.2013, was made by the petitioner to the Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, TNEB, Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai – 62, the 1st respondent, to restore electricity supply, to the shop, the same has not been done.
3. According to the petitioner, that vide letter dated 03.05.2013 when the petitioner has come forward to pay the advance and other amounts, the Electricity Board ought to have considered the order made in M.P.No.59 of 2013 dated 30.04.2013 and restored the electricity. In the abovesaid circumstances, mandamus has been sought for, directing the Assistant Engineer, to provide electricity connection to the shop at Door No.52, MTH Road, Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai – 62.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
5. Before adverting to the submissions advanced in respect of the relief sought for this Court deems it fit to extract Section 17 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
"17. Landlord not to interfere with amenities enjoyed by tenant:
(1) No landlord shall, without just or sufficient cause, cut off or withhold or cause to be cut off or withheld any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant or were in existence during the previous tenancy.
(2) A tenant in occupation of a building may, if the landlord has contravened the provisions of this section, make an application to the Controller complaining of such contravention.
(3) If the tenant satisfies the Controller that the amenities were cut off or withheld, or caused to be cut off or withheld, the Controller may pass an interim order, directing the landlord to restore the amenities immediately, pending the inquiry referred to in sub-section (4)
(4) If the Controller or inquiry finds that the tenant has been in enjoyment of the amenities [or that the amenities were in existence during the previous tenancy] and that they were cut off or withheld by the land lord without just or sufficient cause or if the landlord was in any way responsible for the amenities being cut off or withheld, he shell make an order directing the landlord to restore such amenities.
(5) The Controller may, in his discretion, direct that compensation not exceeding fifty rupees -
(a) be paid to the landlord by the tenant, if the application under sub-section(2) was made frivolously or vexatiously;
(b) be paid to the tenant by the landlord, if the landlord had cut off or withheld the amenities or was in any way responsible for the amenities being cut off or withheld frivolously or vexatiously."
6. Admittedly, there is dispute between the landlord and tenant. In M.P.No.59 of 2013, filed under Section 17(3) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the petitioner, by impleading the landlord alone has sought for a direction to permit him to restore the electricity connection at the cost of the petitioner and to recover the same from the rent payable to the respondent in respect of the suit property. The
