Madras High Court
A.Shakila vs The Chairman on 29 October, 2014
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29/10/2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN W.P.No.4313 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 A.Shakila ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Annasalai, Chennai 600 002. 2.The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Baba Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049. 3.P.Sumithra ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of writ, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2014 and thereby direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide separate commercial service connection to the petitioner's shop situated at M/s.Jas Collections, No.12/1, Senthil Nagar, 1st Main Road, Kolathur, Chennai 600 099, in her name as tenant of the 3rd respondent. For Petitioner s : Mr.M.V.Muralidaran For Respondents : Mr.G.Vasudevan E.B for R1 and R2 Mr.V.Chandrakanthan for R3 - - - (CAV on 21.04.2014 and Pronounced on 30.10.2014) O R D E R
The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The Writ Petitioner submits that she is running a Fancy Store under the name and style of Jas Collections in a rental premises situated in No.12/1, Senthil Nagar, 1st Main Road, Kolathur, Chennai 99, belonging to the 3rd Respondent herein. She was inducted as a tenant in the above said rental premises by the land owner viz., P.Sumithra /3rd respondent herein, for a monthly rent of Rs.42,000/- and advance amount paid a sum of Rs.4,20,000/-. As per the tenancy agreement dated 27.05.2011. She approached the Corporation officials and applied for licence for running of the said fancy store after collecting necessary charges including licence fee. The said licence is still in force.
2. The petitioner additionally added that she is regularly paying the monthly rental amount to the landlord. Under the circumstances, the 3rd respondent/land lady enhanced the monthly rent from Rs.42,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- and had collected additional amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. The Petitioner had requested the 3rd respondent to reduce the required exorbitant rent, hence the 3rd Respondent attempted to evict the petitioner from the said rental premises. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.6370/2012, on the file of XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for a permanent injunction restraining the 3rd respondent herein from evicting the petitioner from the rental premises. The 3rd respondent had also entered appearance in the said suit and resisted the same. Under the circumstances the 3rd respondent disconnected the water supply and electricity connection in the rental premises. Therefore, the petitioner had levelled a rent control original petition No.2447/2012, on the file of the XI Small Causes Court, Chennai, for restoration of basic amenities of water and Electricity Supply, the same was restored. The Petitioner is doing her business in the said rental premises after following all the conditions mentioned in the licence, which has been issued by the Chennai Corporation. At this juncture the Revenue Officer, attached to the Chennai Corporation had issued a notice dated 20.11.2013 under section 287, Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, stating that the petitioner is running the Fancy Store without licence and further he directed the petitioner to apply for the necessary licence failing which prosecution will be initiated against the petitioner. The said notice issued by the Corporation officials in a mechanical manner and at the instigation of the 3rd respondent herein and her husband.
3. The petitioner further added that challenging the said notice and she filed a Writ Petition No.32021/2013, before this Court along with a supplementary application. This Court was pleased to grant interim stay restraining the Revenue Officer's Proceedings. Subsequently, the same officer had cancelled the said demand notice as such the original licence for running the Fancy Store which is operating for running the Fancy Store. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent and her husband is oftenly resorting to water stoppage to the shop premises without any reason. The petitioner paying the monthly rent by way of cheque without default whatsoever. Now, the petitioner is unable to run the business without basic amenities such as water and electricity. In the Fancy Store, four ladies are working and one of them is handicapped. Therefore, the four ladies are going through severe discomfort without toilet facilities. Further, the 3rd respondent is continuously making false complaints to the statutory authorities with the intention to Distract and evict the petitioner from the premises. The petitioner has spent a huge amount for interior decoration and furniture for the shop after obtaining a loan from the bank besides her husband's earnings..
4. The petitioner further submits that the 3rd respondent oftenly resorts to disturbing the petitioner by way of disconnecting the water mains and electricity supply and giving mental torture with malafide intention of evicting her. Further, she is demanding a huge amount from the petitioner and also sending threatening messages. As on date there is no rental arrears from July 2013, the petitioner is paying a monthly increased rent a sum of Rs.46,200/-. The land lady's husband is also demanding huge amount as follows:
30.01.2014 3.18PM Pay arrears of rent Rs.63,000/- immediately failure which electricity will be disconnected.
01.02.2014 08.16PM Please note you are doing illegal business in my building and you are not having any rights to continue business in my building without validation there is no need to pay rant if you vacate my building as already asked to vacate you. The deformation case will be filled against you for allegation made by you.
02.02.2014 07.32AM Please note if you pay rent less Rs.4,200/- for January 2014 as mentioned in your letter dated 29.01.2014 electricity will be disconnected. Please pay arrears of rent Rs.63,000/- for avoid unnecessary complication raised by you. Please think right way god will help you.
5. The 3rd respondent had disconnected water supply from 05.01.2014 onwards and also threatening the petitioner for disconnecting the electricity supply, hence a complaint had been lodged before the Rajamangalam Police Station, against the 3rd respondent, which is pending enquiry. As per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Law under section 6.03, the petitioner is entitled to get separate electricity connection.
Section 6.03 of the Terms and Conditions of supply electricity of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reads hereunder.
If the owner is not available or if he refuses to give consent letter, the intending consumer should produce proof of his being in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond in the form any losses on account of disputes arising out of effecting service connection to the occupant (vide Appendix I).
Section 27(4) of the Code reads hereunder:
27 Requisitions for supply of energy-(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 if 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 if the Annexure III to this Code indemnifying the license against any loss on account of dispute arising out of effecting service connection to the occupant and acceptance to pay security deposit twice the normal rate.
6. The petitioner additionally stated that she submitted a petition to the respondents 1 and 2 and requested them to provide a separate electricity service connection to the petitioner's rental premises and also given an undertaking stating that she will surrender the electricity service connection when ever she vacates the rental premises, if she had been affected by a new electricity connection in her name, the same was for not being considered by the respondents, hence, the above writ petition has been filed.
7. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter statement and stated that already two service connections in Nos.072:085:1179 and 072:085:1103 is effected in the name of the landlord i.e., P.Sumithra (3rd respondent herein) to shop premises at No.12/1, 1st Main Road, Senthil Nagar, Kolathur by TANGEDCO. He further submits that the petitioner herein who is a tenant and in possession of the shop premises at the said premises. He further submits that the petitioner was given a representation on 06.02.2014 requesting separate new service connection to the shop JAS Collection in her name as tenant and also enclosed the copy of the Rental Agreement copy of the E.B Card, copy of the complaint given in the Rajamangalam Police Station in C.S.R.No.5181328, dated 31.01.2014 and 2823087 dated 16.10.2013 and copy of the order in R.C.O.P.No.2447 of 2013, dated 13.02.2013. This respondent further submits that since there is electricity service in line to the said premises another electricity serviced connection cannot be given in the name of the petitioner, according to the Rule 27 (13) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code 2004, which reads as follows:
27(13) within a door number or sub door number an establishment or person will not be given more than one service connection. 27(14) Where more than one person or more than one establishment is in occupation of a door number or sub door number, more than one service connection will be given only if there is a permanent physical segregation of areas for which different service connections are applied for.
8. The 3rd respondent had also filed a counter statement and opposed the above writ petition and this respondent submits that, the property situate at door No.12/1, Senthil Nagar, First Main Road, Kolathur, Chennai 99, was purchased by his father by applying provident fund loan in the year of 1972. He submits that due to poor financial condition of his father it was kept idle without raising any construction since 1972 till the date of death of his father in the year of 2004. Thereafter, the said property inherited by his sisters along through the execution of partition deed with his sisters in the year 2007 that, his share entitled a little bit of 1096 sq.ft only and she submits that, under severe monetary and physical strain the construction took place after obtaining the bank loan in the year of 2008 for his own residential and commercial use which is not completed in civil work till date due to facing financial strain. She submits that the constructed building consists of two portion, one of which is duplex complex which comprising first and second floor measuring at 1600 sq.ft and another portion is in the Ground Floor measuring at 90 sq.ft., providing separate entrance by installed iron rolling shutter. She submits that, the current market value of land and building is worth at Rs.1.80 crores. She submits that the petitioner Mrs.Shakila, along with her husband Mr.Ashok Kumar for letting out of her first and second floor duplex building measuring at 1600 sq.ft. for running her Fancy Business for limited period of one year only. She submits that, without making any enquiry about the petitioner and her husband. She accepted to let out the building measuring at 1600 sq.ft as explained above to the petitioner for marketing, the Fancy Business under the name and style of M/s.JAS COLLECTIONS. She submits that, the petitioner and herself had entered into a Rental Agreement dated 27.05.2011, that the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.42,000/- as monthly rent payable as per English Calendar month and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- as caution deposit. She submits that, the period of agreement validation is purely eleven months i.e., from 01.09.2011 to 31.07.2013. She submits that the petitioner asked her to let out the above premises for one year only, thereafter the petitioner is willing to shift her business to some other place where the petitioner's own building is to be constructed, so that she decided that there was no need for making enquiry about petitioner and her husband and had let out for a short period.
9. The 3rd respondent submits that the building was handedover to the plaintiff on 15.07.2011 with lock and key including E.B Consumption Service No.072:85:1103 and 072:085:1179. She submit that, the agreement period commenced from 01.09.2011 to 31.07.2012 for eleven months only, though the building was handed over to the petitioner on 15.07.2011, as per the request of the petitioner the period from 15.07.2011 to 31.08.2011, 45 days treated as holiday period free rent at the time being, beyond six months the petitioner had assured to pay the above period of 45 days rent for Rs.63,000/- after commencement of her fancy business to the defendant. She submit that, for anything above 45 days, the basic amenities such as water, electricity and bath facilities also provided to the petitioner to set up interior alteration for Fancy Business as mentioned in the agreement condition No.9 which was fully availed by the petitioner and her husband Mr.Ashok Kumar that, they were not allowed even emergency usage of toilet for her husband and myself. She submits that, the holiday period for 45 days rent for Rs.63,000/- is yet to be paid by the petitioner as promised by the petitioner inspite of repeated requests made by her. She submits that, the consumption of water charges for petitioner since 15.07.2011 to till date is Rs.32,082/- paid to metro water which has been fully utilized by the petitioner and the same is bound to pay the above rent and water charges dues tome with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, since the date of handing over the building on 15.07.2011.
10. The 3rd respondent submits that thereafter, the petitioner and her husband requested to let out the second portion of her building as stated above measuring about 90sq.ft small shop for usage of petitioner and her employees as rest room. She submits, that the second portion of the shop measuring 90 sq.ft also handed over to the petitioner on 15.07.2011 i.e., before commencement of agreement dated on 01.09.2011 treated as free rent, no rent has been asked till date by her for the above second portion because the petitioner assured to vacate her building within the agreement period dated 31.07.2011 itself that, the petitioner was planning to shift her business to some other place where the petitioner was planning to construct her own building.
11. The 3rd respondent submits that the important Agreement condition No.9 stated that for engaging the petitioner in Fancy Business allowed to set-up interior decoration using only WOOD AND STEEL RACKS permitted inside the building, but the petitioner and her husband Mr.Ashok Kumar set-up the interior decoration works from 15.07.2011 itself in both floors setting up BOXES ON WALLS USING PLYWOOD AND GLASSES using heavy 7 mm drill bits inside the walls and roofs, basement columns and also dismantling the entire electrical circuit switches, damaged the vitrified tiles, granites etc., in violation and contrary of the agreement condition No.9 resulting in such action of violation of agreement condition there is more possibilities caused by damage of con-sealed cables her building to be burnt under fire in future, even though the necessary electrical distribution boxes also are well provided in both floors separately including the small shop for emergency use to prevent fire of con-sealed cables, but, she is not having any trust against the petitioner and her husband Mr.Ashok Kumar in doing so.
12. The 3rd respondent submits that when her husband used to visit her building occasionally before commencement of business and later on, he was shocked and surprised to see the sexual activities of petitioner's husband Mr.Ashok Kumar with his women customers in the first floor having separate attached bath room designed by petitioner. It was noticed and pointed out and warned him by her husband not to use by indulging her premises with such immoral and illegal activities, later on the petitioner's husband pleaded with her and her husband and assured that, he will not indulge in such activities in future inside her building. She submits that she has given him the second floor key to use metro water motor and E.B., for few months initially, the petitioner's husband indulging in such immoral activities inside the second floor portion which is the reason for is not finishing civil works still. She submits that, neighbours of her building are making complaints against the petitioner's husband over such illegal activities in her building, that the key for second floor was taken back from him and she submits that, thereafter, the petitioner and her husband had not allowed her and her husband to visit inside the premises and the petitioner's husband sent message to her husband that if any inspection inside the premises will only be allowed after getting permission in writing along with Court order. She submits that, it is learnt that, the petitioner's husband is doing such illegal and immoral activities inside her building continuously as the the complaint made by the neighbours, as such illegal behaviour of petitioner's husband, she submits that her building and their name, badly damaged by the petitioner and her husband and the public are seeing us differently which causing serious mental agony for her and her husband.
13. The 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner and her husband installed heavy loaded two ton capacity three numbers of split Air-Conditioner machines which could not maintain the existing cables, as already damaged by the petitioner using heavy capacity 7mm dia drills inside the walls as stated above, which may cause serious burning by fire in and outside of the building which will lead to collapse of the entire building in future. She submits that, the petitioner and her husband Mr.Ashok Kumar ignored her advice and her husband's advice and request, made when doing such violations, which is causing serious mental agony for them. She submits that, the petitioner husband Mr.Ashok Kumar acting as Hysteria Patient differently that, her husband and herself cannot control his activities inside the premises, and also his activities keep changing from time to time using different kinds of filthy language expressing his exchange of words unusually when they approached him he acts like a chameleon animal. As such, the petitioner and her husband have damaged the entire building caused heavy cracks inside and outside of the building walls, roof etc, resulting in causing serious mental agony to her and her family and diminishing the fair value of the new constructed building. So that, we have decided to vacate him before commencement of their business, the petitioner was asked to vacate the building and informed them by way of message as well as orally. But, the petitioner refused to do, so that, they allowed and strictly informed to run their business untill the period of agreement dated 31.07.2012, since the petitioner also agreed to vacate before the agreement period and they are willing to shift their business in to their own building which it is to be constructed.
14. The 3rd respondent submits that before executing the above agreement, the petitioner and her husband agreed to shift their business to some other place where the petitioner proposed to be constructed her new own building before expiry of the agreement dated 31.07.2012. As per their statement the petitioner did not take any action to vacate her building, so that, petitioner was asked to vacate the building and requested to deliver the vacant possession to her as per her letter dated 30.07.2012 and also requested to not send any rent for further period of beyond agreement date and informed the petitioner by letter dated 04.09.2012 and Telegram sent by her, besides the petitioner did not care to her request. She submits that, from August 2012 to December 2012, five month rent not paid by petitioner, eventhough accepted to receive rent as stated before this Court of Small Causes R.C.O.P.No.2146 of 2012 filed by the petitioner for deposit of rent, but the petitioner failed to pay five month rent due to her, thereafter, after making oral complaint against petitioner to the Inspector of Police, Rajamangalam Police Station, Kolathur, then only the petitioner paid five month rent due to her in presence of Inspector of Police.
15. The 3rd respondent submits that further the petitioner and her husband Mr.Ashok Kumar made false police complaints against her by threatening them by way of rowdism in order to get extension of the agreement validation. She submits that, the enquiry made by the police official, Rajamangalam Police Station, Kolathur, Chennai on 06.01.2013 proved that the complaint against her was untrue, and the Police officials also warned the petitioner and her husband to avoid making such serious false complaints against her in future and she further submits that the averments made in para 3,6 and para 7 of the affidavit are false and distorted facts. She submits that the petitioner running his business in her building on large scale, as per their statement, she has not been maintaining proper rules and regulations of the Government. She submit that, though the premises located within the limit of Corporation of Chennai in a prime location, the petitioner has not obtained Corporation of Chennai License for running her Fancy Business under Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act IV of 1919, since inception of the petitioner business dated 01.09.2011. She submits that the petitioner obtained Corporation license only on 24.08.2013 as stated in her affidavit furnishing false information without concurrence of the building owner. She submits that the Corporation license obtained by the petitioner is only four months before filing this writ petition before the Court. The petitioner furnished false information before Corporation of Chennai for obtaining the said license only in view for submission before this Court. Due to not-obtaining the proper Corporation of Chennai License since inception by the petitioner, the Revenue Officer, Corporation of Chennai issued caution Notice under section 287 and 379-A for non-obtaining the license along with building owners concurrence issued on 20.11.2013. She submits that, anytime the Chennai Corporation will take legal action against the petitioner shop for locking the petitioner's shop under violation of license conditions for obtaining corporation license furnishing the false information. She submits that, the petitioner has been evading VAT and Income tax payment to the Government. She submits that, he would submit that during trial, the petitioner's husband Mr.Ashok Kumar (PW.2) has said that, he would submit that VAT and Income Tax paid details before this Court if the Court gives directions to the petitioner to submit the above payment details.
16. The 3rd respondent submits that she made a complaint against the petitoiner to the Corporation of Chennai, as per Corporation of Chennai Revenue Act, the concurrence and acceptance of Land owner is a must for issue of the business license in favour of tenant in Chennai City. Due to non-issue of such concurrence by her, the petitioner and her husband Mr.Ashok Kumar doing illegal business in her premises pleaded action against petitioner and sent a letter dated 16.09.2013 to the Corporation of Chennai and the same is pending in the Corporation of Chennai for enquiry. She submits that the petitioner averments made in her affidavit para 4 are a false statement and self-serving statements. She submit that, due to failure to vacate her building by the petitioner as promised while execution of the agreement. She decided to charge rent for a small room portion measuring at 90 sq. ft already let out to the petitioner's free of cost for petitioner rest room till the agreement period as stated earlier, she demanded the petitioner to pay rent since the expiry of the agreement, further, due to heavy damages caused by the petitioner and the business carrying out other than the agreement conditions and legal activities indulging in her building by the petitioner's husband Mr.Ashok Kumar, the suit property fetched rent of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. She submits that, her demand to pay additional caution deposit for Rs.6,00,000/- due to the heavy damages caused by the petitioner which is beyond renovation. She submits that, she demanded for Rs.1,00,000/- as rent only for six months after the expiry of the agreement so as to enable the petitioner to vacate her building. She submits that, even if the petitioner agrees to pay such an amount, right now she cannot allow him to run her business, because she needs her building for her emergency use. She submits that, she is paying property tax and Metro Water tax for commercial purposes for the rented portion at Rs.15,570/- and Rs.9,194/- per annum respectively. She submits that, the petitioner refused to pay even the water charges for Rs.32,082/-, the petitioner has been consuming fully till date.
17. The 3rd respondent submits that as per the averments made in the petitioner's affidavit para 8 states that there are seven employees working in their shop along with petitioner and her husband totally seven female employees being working there. She submits that, the area of the petitioner's shop covered more than 1600 sq. ft fully occupied with fancy materials as quickly burning nature of goods as admitted by petitioner, which may need fire preventive measures as per Fire and Rescue Services Department Act. She submits that, the petitioner did not obtain No Objection Certificate from Fire and Rescue services Department. She submits that, the petitioner is not maintaining any Fire rescue measures inside the shop, it may lead to a very dangerous disaster to live along with buildings in future and she submits that, the petitioner's affidavit para 8 and 9 are false statement, the petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands. She submit that, the petitioner and her husband Mr.Ashok Kumar suppressed many more facts and given frivolous, false statements before this Court. She submits that, the petitioner in her letter sent dated 30.07.2012 as marked as exhibit-A3 before Trial Court consist that, the petitioner has invested for her business in her building Rs.20 lakhs, and everyday cash sales turnover Rs.15,000/- whereas the petitioner's husband Mr.Ashok Kumar marked along with his proof affidavit before before trial court, the Insurance package contrary of facts what petitioner admitted in earlier letter dated 30.07.2012 marked as Exhibit-A3 in the trial court along with Insurance package. She submits that, the said Insurance package obtained by the petitioner from New India Assurance Company dated 29.11.2012, it was obtained after filing the suit before trial court dated 09.10.2012 leaving workmen compensation for other women employee working in her shop in the said policy. It is submitted that, after obtaining this fire policy by the petitioner, that the petitioner husband Mr.Ashok Kumar threatened her husband in person in so many occasions inside the Court premises and at her site, if the said agreement will not be renewed by her, he has planned to set fire to the shop along with building in order to claim exaggerated Insurance money for Rs.42,36,000/- that, the matter was taken into the knowledge of Inspector of Police, Kolathur Police Station, Chennai 99, on 31.10.2013 and also intimated to the New India Insurance Company Ltd., where the policy was obtained dated 16.11.2012, that the copy of his letter addressed to the Insurance Company marked before the Trial Court.
18. The 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner carrying on business in her premises located in the heavy traffic main road since recently Villivakkam underground sub-way opened and prospective customers used to purchase the fancy products in the petitioner's shop, and the non-availability of the parking facility inside or outside of her building is causing serious traffic jams in front of the petitioner's shop. She submits that, the traffic Police Officers also advised the petitioner and herself to shift the petitioner's business to some other place due to heavy traffic jam in front of the building, it may lead to a very serious problem to her in future, if the petitioner does not vacate the premises. She submits that the petitioner constructed her own building at Perambur Paper Mills Road and opened new fancy show room in their new building in January 2014 as her new branch fancy show room without shifting her business from her building as already promised by the petitioner while execution of the agreement. She submits that, the petitioner and her husband lead very rich line and they owned two housing flats and a luxurious car. She submits that the petitioner and her husband are continuously having the habit of giving more and more torture to her and her husband in so many ways after filing the suit before the trial court, threatening to renew the agreement. She submits that, the petitioner's husband Mr.Ashok Kumar sent false complaints against herself and her husband's mobile number in his complaint receiving calls regarding his complaint enquiry giving serious mental agony to her husband and herself. She submits that, recently the petitioner and her husband sent a complaint to the Corporation of Chennai alleging deviation in her building, though she has constructed the building as per the plan approved by the Corporation.
19. In addition that she is living in a rented house along with her son paying rent Rs.15,000/- per month. There is no other property owned by her or her husband in Chennai or any other place except the suit property, an extent of 1069 sq. ft., of ancestral property. She submits that, due to heavy financial strain the second floor civil work is not completed so far in her building since 2011. She submits that her own building is required for her residential purpose and to carry on her own business. Moreover, her son's education is to be completed in May 2014, itself and we are planning to shift her family in her building at Kolathur, Chennai as already planned. She submits that, in the circumstances explained above that, the rental agreement expired on 31.07.2012 itself, and the same was not renewed so far, for want of her own use. She submits that, due to violation of the conditions and damages caused to the entire premise by the petitioner and illegally used building for some other purpose other than the purpose for which the property was let-out by her has caused serious mental agony to her and her family. She submits that the petitioner cannot seek any remedy from this Court beyond the agreement validation. She specifically submits that, the petitioner running their business till date in her building beyond the agreement validation for nearly three years instead of agreement period of 11 months, the petitioner has to vacate and deliver the vacant building to her right now, but the petitioner and her husband are unnecessarily creating complications illegally. She submits that, the petitioner is not having any right to continue business and to install new electricity connections in the name of tenant in her building in this belated stage and hence, the petitioner has to vacate her building so as to enable us to shift our family in her building during the vacation of 2014. She submits that, her property worth about Rs.1.80 crores and allowing the petitioner to install new separate electricity connection in the name of tenant in her building will amount to a very dangerous situation. She submits that, since already informed to the petitioner by her to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of her building in good conditions as already promised by the petitioner while execution of the agreement, since the petitioner and her husband committed breach of conditions of the agreement having nexus with rowdy elements at their command and threatening her husband and herself in many ways with dire consequences. She submits that, if the commercial installation is allowed as prayed by the petitioner in this writ petition. She submit that, her building will be badly damaged since the building has already been damaged by the petitioner and is beyond renovation. She further submit that, if new Electricity Board connection is allowed to the petitioner name in her building and she will not be able to shift her family to her own building and she will be put to irreparable loss misery and hardship and no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner in future. She submits that, the petitioner opened a new fancy show room in her own newly constructed building at Perambur area without vacating her building as already promised by them. She submit that, the petitioner and her husband are leading a very luxurious life owning two housing flats and a luxurious car. She submits that, the Electricity consumption details in her building are given in Annexure-A for the Electricity Board consumer service No.072:08:1179 and Annexure-B for Electricity Board consumer No.072:085:1103 for perusal. She submit that my building was handed over to the petitioner on 15.07.2011 along with two electric consumer cards to the petitioner by her. She submits that till date electricity is being provided to her and not dis-connected as alleged in the para-9 of the affidavit of the petitioner. It is submitted that, the petitioner promised to pay the arrears of rent for the period from 15.07.2011 to 31.08.2011 amounting to Rs.63,000/- and six months after commencement of her business including water consumption charges. But the petitioner did not pay the said arrears of rent and water charges as promised by the petitioner when she occupied her building on 15.07.2011. She submits that, the Police Inspector, Rajamanagalm Police Station also advised the petitioner to pay arrears of rent of Rs.63,000/- and metro water consumption charges till date for Rs.32,082/- and she submit that the petitioner has not paid the dues till date, so that the message sent by her husband as alleged in her affidavit. She submit that the petitioner could have paid the said dues instead of committing such misery to her. She submit that, she has no idea to dis-connect the Electricity connection till the disposal of the O.S.No.6370 of 2012, which is pending disposal before XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, if the tenant is paying subsequent monthly rent regularly along with dues. She submits that the petitioner seeking separate electricity connection in the name of petitioner is agreeing to pay even twice the normal rate to the Electricity Board, why the petitioner is not interested to pay her rent arrears for the period from 15.07.2011 to 31.08.2011 for Rs.63,000/- which is pending since 01.09.2011, which is a meager amount compared to the expenses of new electricity connection as prayed through this mandamus petition before this Court. She submits that, there is absolutely no vacant place available to install the separate new Electricity Board connection in her building in the name of tenant. She submits that, moreover as the petitioner already breached the agreement condition and damaged the entire building critically beyond renovation. She submit that the reasons stated above, the petitioner seeking separate electricity connections in the name of the tenant in her building is not absolutely permissible, there is no little bit of vacant place available to install the separate new Electricity Board connection in her building in the name of tenant. She submits that, moreover as the petitioner already breached the agreement condition and damaged the entire building critically beyond renovation. She submits that the reason stated above, the petitioner seeking separate electricity connections in the name of the tenant in her building is not absolutely permissible, there is no little bit of vacant place available in her building to install the new electricity connection in the name of tenant. She submits that the petitioner is bound to pay arrears of rent dues from 15.07.2011 to 31.08.2011 for Rs.63,000/- at the rate of interest 12% per annum since 01.09.2011 and settle dues of water charges which was consumed fully by the petitioner since 15.07.2011 to till date for Rs.32,082/-. If the petitioner is willing to pay the above arrears due to her electricity connection will be provided to the petitioner till the disposal of the pending suit No.6370 of 2012.
20. She additionally added that she submits that the petitioner without considering the above facts has filed the writ petition before this Court seeking for the relief to provide separate electricity connection to the petitioner's name is not maintainable and since the electricity connection to the petitioner's name is not maintainable since the electricity supply is being provided to the petitioner without any break till date since occupation of the petitioner in her building. She submits that, the electricity consumed by the petitioner with details as on date furnished in the Annexure A and B. She submits that the petitioner and her husband are not honest and not maintaining the responsibility becoming of a tenant and they have in fact mislead this Court's precious time by filing vague and false affidavit furnishing the false information before this Court. She submits that the petitioner has approached this Court for beyond the requisite time frame after expiry of the agreement validation and has not come before this Court with clean hands, as the electricity supply utilized by the petitioner till date without any dis-connection. She submits that, if the writ petition is allowed and she will be put to irreparable loss, misery and hardship, otherwise no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner, if the writ petition is dismissed.
21. The 3rd respondent has also filed an affidavit stating that without prejudice her right to evict the petitioner from her property and undertake that she will not disconnect the electricity connection for the shop situate at M/s.JAS COLLECTIONS No.12/1, Senthil Nagar First Main Road, Kolathur, Chennai- 600 009. She submits that the petitioner and her husband Mr.Ashok Kumar threatening her and her husband if the agreement of lease is not extended, the petitioner and her husband will set fire to the building owned by her and claim insurance. She submits that this Court may be pleased to direct the petitioner to file an undertaking that he will not cause harm of the building. She submits that this Court may be pleased to direct the petitioner to pay arrears of rent for a sum of Rs.63,000/- and water charges Rs.32,082/- to her. In the circumstances she prays that this Court may be pleased to accept this affidavit and dismiss the above writ petition.
22. The highly competent counsel Mr.M.V.Muralidaran appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lawful tenant as per tenancy agreement dated 27.05.2011, under the land-lady/3rd respondent herein. As per the rental agreement, the petitioner paid an advance i.e., Rs.4,20,000/- and she is paying a monthly rent a sum of Rs.42,000/- for every succeeding English calendar month excluding electricity charges without any default. The petitioner occupied the tenancy premise at Door No.12/1, Senthil Nagar 1st Main Road, Kolathur, Chennai and running a fancy store in the name and style of JAS COLLECTIONS, after obtaining necessary llicence from the Chennai Corporation. After some time the 3rd respondent and her husband had demanded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as additional advance, the same was refused by the petitioner. Hence, the 3rd respondent is continuously disturbing the petitioner by way of disconnecting the water supply and electrical connection, therefore, the petitioner had filed rent control original petitioner before the learned rent controller for the restoration of electricity and water connections, the same was restored. The very competent counsel further submits that the 3rd respondent and her men assistants threatening the petitioner by resorting to SMS message and also by use of force. Hence, the petitioner had levelled a civil suit before the City Civil Court, Chennai, for formal injunction restraining the 3rd respondent and her men assistants. The City Civil Court was pleased to grant interim injunction in order to protect her Civil rights for enjoying the rental premises without any interference. Further on the instigation of the 3rd respondent and her husband, the Revenue Officer who is attached to the Chennai Corporation had issued a cancellation notice for cancelling the licence for running the Fancy store in the rental premises. Now, the petitioner is paying the increased rent i.e., a sum of Rs.46,200/- as monthly rent.
23. The learned counsel further submits that four women employees are working in the Fancy shop under the petitioner for a monthly salary. Out of them one employer is a physical challenged lady. After dis-connecting the water supply the employees are unable to attend the basic toilet facility, as such they are much inconvenienced and suffering. The 3rd respondent is constantly causing trouble to the petitioner with malafide intention in order to evict her from the fancy premises unlawfully. The petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3202 of 2013 along with auxiliary application and challenged the impugned notice issued by the Chennai Corporation Officials. This Court was pleased to grant interim stay preventing the Chennai Corporation Officials. This Court was pleased to grant interim stay preventing the Chennai Corporation not to interfere with the petitioner's business affairs. Further, the petitioner is entitled to obtain separate electricity service connection being a lawful tenant as per section 6.03 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Code, since the land lady refused to supply electricity which is a basic amenity. Further as on date there is no rental arrears towards the tenancy premises. At the time of vacating the rental premises, the writ petitioner will surrender the newly obtained electricity connection if obtained in the name of the petitioner from the respondents 1 and 2, hence the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to allow the above writ petition,
24. The very competent counsel Mr.G.Vasudevan appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents submits that the 3rd respondent had obtained two service connections to the tenancy as permission in her name. Under the circumstances the writ petitioner had levelled a representation on 06.02.2014 and requested the board to provide a separate new electricity service connection to her shop and she also enclosed a copy of the rental agreement and a copy of the Electricity Board card besides a CSR receipt issued by the Rajamangalam Police Station and a copy of the rent control Court. Further as per rule 27(13) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code 2004 and one more new electricity services connection cannot be provided since there is an existing service connection functioning in the said premises, as such the highly competent counsel requests to dismiss the above writ petition.
25. The very competent counsel Mr.V.Chandrakanthan appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that originally the property purchased by her father after his lifetime, the said property inherited by her sisters and herself. After partition she had been given a share to an extent of 1096 sq.ft. Thereafter she obtained bank loan and constructed the building over the land for her residential purpose and for commercial use. The building is a duplex complex worth about Rs.80 Crores. Further the petitioner and the 3rd respondent had entered into a rental agreement for a period of eleven months that expired on 31.07.2012 as such the petitioner has to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant portion to the 3rd respondent. Further, on the request of the petitioner a portion to an extent of 90 sq. ft., in the 2nd floor had been alloted as a resting room for her employees for which the petitioner is liable to pay rent from 01.09.2011. Further, the petitioner had violated the agreement conditions and made decorations at her own convenience and damaged the tenancy conveniences. Further, the petitioner having a separate bathroom in the 1st floor, her husband Mr.Ashok Kumar is involved in immoral and illegal activities in the said rental premises. Knowing the same the neighbours are making complaints against them, because of such immoral activities by the husband of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is getting a wrong signal from the society. Further, the petitioner and her husband are not properly maintaining the buildings, as such the valuation of the building is being diminished periodically due to the petitioner's poor maintenance which is causing damage.
26. The highly competent counsel further submits that the original agreement had no such clause as such the petitioner has no locus- standi to continuously occupy the said property as a tenant. Further, the petitioner had not paid the monthly rent for a period of five months. Subsequently, the same was paid in the presence of Inspector of Police, law and order, who is attached to the Rajamangalam Police Station. The petitioner's husband threatened the 3rd respondent for renewal of original rental agreement. The petitioner had not renewed the licence for running the fancy shop in the petitioner's premises. As such, the petitioner's business is not a lawful one. Besides, this, the petitioner is avoiding and evading VAT and income tax to the statutory authorities. As per the land value and construction cost and considering other infrastructure provided in the rental premises, the fair rent is Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner is also selling quick burning nature of goods in her shop which is not permissible and the same is being sold without obtaining no objection certificate from the Fire Department. The 3rd respondent had obtained the service connections in the said premises. As such, one more service connection cannot be provided in the said premises. The petitioner has constructed her own building at Perambur paper mills road, wherein the petitioner can run the Fancy shop at her own building. The petitioner is wantonly and deliberately occupying the said rental premises even after expiry of the rental agreement period. Further she has filed a Civil Suit in order to avoid eviction. Hence, the very competent counsel prays to dismiss the above writ petition.
27. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on all sides and on perusing the affidavit and counter statement of the parties concerned, this Court is inclined to allow the above writ petition and directs the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner representation dated 01.02.2014 and to provide separate commercial electricity service connection to the petitioners shop namely JAS COLLECTIONS'' SITUATED AT No.12/1, Senthil Nagar 1st Main Road, Kolathur, Chennai 99, subject to payment of Rs.63,000/- as regarded by the 3rd respondent towards rental arrears and Rs.32,082/- towards Metro Water Consumer charges by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent, without prejudice. This Court further imposes the condition that whenever the petitioner vacates the tenancy premises. She has to surrender the newly granted electricity service connection, which is a basic amenity. The new service connection has been only granted in order to avoid further dispute among the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The petitioner shall not claim any additional rights for availing the new electricity service connection.
28. In the result, the above writ petition is allowed with the above observations. Consequently, Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Accordingly oredered.
Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. ub To 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Annasalai, Chennai 600 002. 2.The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Baba Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049.