Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT (Madurai Bench)
R. Mahadevan, J.
Kadhariya Oriental Nursery and Primary School, run by Mohideen Andavar Dhargah and Pallivasal and Meena Noordeen Dhargah and Pallivasal, rep. through its Correspondent - Petitioner
Versus
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, rep. by its Superintending Engineer - Respondent
W.P.(MD). Nos. 5126 of 2015 and 6223 of 2015 and M.P.(MD). Nos. 1 and 1 of 2015
Decided On : 31-07-2015
For the Petitioners:J. Barathan for Mr. T.R. Jeyapalam, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Srimathi for Mr. S.M.S. Johnny Basha Standing counsel for TNEB.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1960 - Section 9 - Electricity Supply Act, 1948 - Section 49 - Section 185(2) (a) - Section 185 (1) - Section 185(1) & (2)(a) - Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 - State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 - Section 29(1) - Wakf Land – Will – Tenant - Mohideen Andavar Dhargah and Pallivasal and Meena Noorden Dhargah and Pallivasal are registered and notified Wakf under control and supervision of Tamil Nadu Wakf Board - Wakf owns an extent of six acres of land - Meena Noordeen Dhargah and Pallivasal are situated in a portion of said land - Out of lands available with Pallivasal, a portion of vacant site measuring an extent of 12,180 Sq.ft equivalent to 27 cents 408 Sq.ft had been leased out to one, Alagammai Achi through a registered lease deed - Later, leasehold interest had been transferred to Sockkalinga Thevar and Suppulakshmi Ammal and on their death, their son, K.S. Poomari became tenant of vacant site - Lessees of vacant site had put up a superstructure over vacant site and had been running a rice mill - Superstructure had been assessed by Madurai City Municipal Corporation - Lessees had been paying superstructure tax - They had also obtained electricity service connection for superstructure - Similarly, a portion of vacant site measuring an extent of 35,294 sq.ft equivalent to 81 cents 14 Sq.ft had been leased to one, Deivanai Ammal through a registered lease by the then Managers(Trustees) of Dhargah and Pallivasal - Lessee of vacant site had put up a superstructure over vacant site and had been running a rice mill - Superstructure had been assessed by Madurai City Municipal Corporation - Lessee had been paying superstructure tax - She had also obtained service connection for superstructure put up by her –Mohideen Andavar Dhargah and Pallivasal and Meena Noordeen Dhargah and Pallivasal through its Managers (Trustees) initiated legal proceedings to evict lessess and to recover vacant site after removal of superstructure put up by them - Wakf filed a suit - Held, Board can stipulate terms and conditions to regulate its transactions and dealings, such principles cannot be applied in this case in a mechanical manner, as owner of the property itself could vacate premises in question through Civil forum - If a tenant wants to harm owner after losing his claim before Civil forum and at end of eviction proceedings, he does harm to owner of property by damaging meter reading, could again owner be liable for default committed by tenant? - That is reason why, Supreme Court cautiously observed in one of its judgments, by relying upon a circular of Board that in case of a genuine purchase, if old consumer had committed default, it would be neither be legal nor proper to insist on realisation of arrears due for giving re-connection - Especially, in a given case, petitioners evicted tenant through process of law, after litigating his case for a period of ten years - Even going by Clause 6.10 of terms and conditions of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, language employed in said clause is that it authorizes them to refuse to supply electricity connection to same premises only and not a new premises - Here, petitioners seek electricity connection to new premises - When an electricity connection stands in name of a tenant and having collected a part amount as fine from tenant, there is no justification to recover remaining charges from owner – Petition Allowed.
R. Mahadevan, J.
Both the Writ Petitions can be dealt with by a common order since the issues that arise for consideration is one and the same, namely, whether the owner of the premises is liable to meet the liability of a tenant?
2. The prayer in the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD). No. 5126 of 2015 is for a Writ of Certiroarified Mandamus to call for records from the second respondent relating to the impugned order dated 27.03.2015 in reference Number Ka.No.Vo.Ma.Po./Pa./Su.Puram/Ko./A.No.87/15 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to effect fresh electricity service connection to the property bearing door number 188, South Veli Street, Madurai. Similarly, the prayer in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD). No. 6223 of 2015 is for a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to effect fresh electricity service connections to the shops in door number 187 South Veli Street Madurai.
3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these Writ Petitions are as follows:-
The Mohideen Andavar Dhargah and Pallivasal and Meena Noorden Dhargah and Pallivasal are the registered and notified Wakf under the control and supervision of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. The Wakf owns an extent of six acres of land in T.S.No.76, at Madurai. The Meena Noordeen Dhargah and Pallivasal are situated in a portion of the said land. Out of the lands available with the Pallivasal, a portion of the vacant site measuring an extent of 12,180 Sq.ft equivalent to 27 cents 408 Sq.ft had been leased out to one, Alagammai Achi through a registered lease deed dated 28.08.1959. Later, the leasehold interest had been transferred to Sockkalinga Thevar and Suppulakshmi Ammal and on their death, their son, K.S. Poomari became the tenant of the vacant site. The lessees of the vacant site had put up a superstructure over the vacant site and had been running a rice mill. The superstructure had been assessed by the Madurai City Municipal Corporation as D.No.188/South Veli Street, Madurai. The lessees had been paying the superstructure tax. They had also obtained electricity service connection for the superstructure. Similarly, a portion of the vacant site measuring an extent of 35,294 sq.ft equivalent to 81 cents 14 Sq.ft had been leased to one, Deivanai Ammal through a registered lease dated 16/05/1990 by the then Managers(Trustees) of the Dhargah and Pallivasal. The lessee of the vacant site had put up a superstructure over the vacant site and had been running a rice mill. The superstructure had been assessed by the Madurai City Municipal Corporation as door numbers 15 A and 16, Meena Noordeen Dhargah and Pallivasal Lane, South Veli Street, Madurai. The lessee had been paying superstructure tax. She had also obtained service connection for the superstructure put up by her.
3.1. The Mohideen Andavar Dhargah and Pallivasal and Meena Noordeen Dhargah and Pallivasal through its Managers (Trustees) initiated legal proceedings to evict the lessess and to recover the vacant site after removal of the superstructure put up by them. The Wakf filed a suit in O.S.No.386 of 1998, on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai against the lessee, namely, K.S. Poomari and filed another suit in O.S.No.382 of 1998 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai against the lessee, namely, Deivanai Ammal. Later, it was transferred and renumbered as W.O.P.No.2 of 2001 and W.O.P.No.4 of 2000, respectively, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court. The matter went upto the Supreme Court, where it was decreed in favour of the petitioners on 27.04.2009. However, the portion leased out to Deivanai Ammal took shelter under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act and filed C.T.O.P.No.43 of 1998, where, she could not succeed. Again, she moved before this Court by way of Civil Revision Petitions, which also came to be dismissed on 25.06.2007.
3.2. When the lessee, namely, Deivanai Ammal was in possession of the superstructure put
