Madras High Court
K.G. Ravindran vs The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu ... on 24 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006)3MLJ59
Author: K. Mohan Ram
Bench: K. Mohan Ram
ORDER K. Mohan Ram, J.
Page 682
1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to process the petitioner's application dated 02.02.2006 to supply energy to Shop Nos. 1 & 2 in premises No. C-41, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040, in which the petitioner is a lawful tenant, within a time stipulated by this Honourable Court.
2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Mr. G.Vasudevan learned counsel for the Electricity Board took notice on behalf of the respondent and took time to get instructions. Accordingly time was granted and the matter is listed today. Learned counsel for Tamil Nadu Electricity Board submitted that since there is objection from the landlord of the petitioner, the department has not granted electricity service connection to the petitioner's premises.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he was inducted into possession as a tenant in respect of 2 shops bearing Nos. 1 and 2 measuring about 600 Sq. Ft. at No. C-41, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040 by one Sri Na. Gopalsamy, the then owner of the said premises, on a monthly rent of Rs. 8,200/-. Electricity charges are being paid by the petitioner separately. It is the case of the petitioner that one D.Ravi and others have purchased the property from the then owner Mr. Na.Gopalsamy by a registered sale deed dated 01.09.2004. According to the petitioner, the same was not brought to his notice.
5. The petitioner's further case is that the present owners have filed a petition for eviction against him in Rent Control Petition (RCOP) No. 545 of 2005 on the file of the XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act and another petition bearing RCOP No. 828 of 2005 on the file of the same Court for fixing a fair rent. The petitioner has submitted his application to the respondent seeking Electricity service connection on 02.02.2006. In the said letter, on the same day, the respondent has pointed out certain defects and has directed the petitioner to produce certain documents within a period of seven days from that date. The documents directed to be produced are:
i) Owner consent letter.
ii) Owner property tax receipt with registered Deed of Sale.
iii) Lease agreement of date of year and it is also pointed out in that letter that the lease agreement is an unregistered one.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
7. As pointed out above, Mr. G.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that only because of the above said defects pointed out by the respondent, electricity service connection could not be provided to the petitioner's premises.
Page 683
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.Ganeshan submitted that already there is a strained relationship between the petitioner on the one hand and the landlord on the other hand due to the pendency of the above said two RCOPs. Learned counsel further submitted that the landlords will not give their consent letter, and they are in possession of the property tax receipts and the registered sale and lease documents. Since the landlords are in possession of the same, the petitioner is not in a position to produce it and the respondent cannot insist for the production of those documents. Learned counsel relying upon Clause 27 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, which reads as follows:
(4) An intending consumer who is not the owner of the premises he occupies shall produce a consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure III to this Code from the owner of the premises for availing the supply. If the owner is not available or he refuses to give consent letter, the intending consumer shall produce proof of his/her being in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond in Form 6 of the Annexure III to this Code indemnifying the licensee against any loss on account of disputes arising out off effecting service connection to the occupant and acceptance to pay security deposit twice the normal rate.
would submit that the respondent, just to help the landlords, is insisting for the production of their consent letter, registered lease deed, lease agreement etc., when the above said provision does not provide for production of such documents.
9. A reading of the above said provision clearly shows that if the consent letter is given by the owner in Form 6 of Annexure III, the petitioner can produce the same and get electricity service connection. If the owner is not available or if he refuse to give his consent letter, the intending consumer (in this case the tenant) shall produce proof of his/her being in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond in Form 6 of Annexure III to this Code indemnifying the licensee against any loss on account of disputes arising out of effecting service connection to the occupant and acceptance to pay security deposit twice the normal rate. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner has submitted a detailed letter dated 09.02.2006 to the respondent explaining the said fact and along with that, he has enclosed the following documents, namely:
i) Tenancy Agreement entered with previous owner.
ii) R.C.O.P. proceedings filed by the present owner against me.
iii) The rent paid in favour of the present owner.
iv) Receipts for electricity charges paid by me.
v) E.B. Card.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the fact that the two RCOPs are pending against the petitioner itself would show that the petitioner is in lawful possession of the premises.
10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is ready to execute an indemnity bond indemnifying the licensee against any loss and is also ready to pay the security deposit twice the normal rate. When the Page 684 petitioner is ready to satisfy the conditions in Clause 27 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Code, the respondent cannot insist for other documents. Even though the petitioner is ready to comply with the conditions contained in Clause 27 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the failure on the part of the respondent in not granting the service connection to the petitioner's premises, is condemnable. Therefore, I am of the view that the writ petitioner is entitled to get service connection, if he complies with all the conditions contained in Clause 27 (4) of the said code.
11. Therefore, the respondent is directed to grant service connection to the petitioner's premises on condition that,
i) the petitioner executes an indemnity bond in Form 6 of Annexure III to this Code indemnifying the Board against any loss on account of disputes arising out of effecting service connection to the petitioner's premises; and on further condition, that
ii) the petitioner pays the security deposit twice the normal rate.
On such compliance, the respondent is directed to provide electricity service connection to the petitioner's premises within a period of two weeks from the date of compliance of the said conditions.
12. With the above directions, the writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P is closed.