V. Elangovan vs The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Madras Electricity Systems

Bakthavatsalam, J.—When the miscellaneous petition came up for hearing by consent of both parties, the main writ petition is taken up for

final disposal.

The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:

to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to effect separate service connection in the shop owned by the petitioner situate in Plot No. 1542, Annanagar,

Western Extension, Madras-600 101 by issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order direction....

The petitioner claims to be a tenant bearing No. 1541, Sree Krishna Nilayam, Annanagar Western Extension, Madras-101 and the said

property is owned by the third respondent. It seems due to certain ill-feelings between the landlord and the tenant/petitioner, the third respondent

started creating troubles and disconnected the electricity connection in the said shop. It seems the petitioner had filed a suit on the file of City Civil

Court in O.S. No. 8007 of 1987 praying for a mandatory injunction directing the third respondent to hand over the electricity card and

consequential reliefs as against the electricity board to receive the electricity charges directly to the department Subsequently the third respondent

started switching off the electricity connection from the meter itself which is located inside the premises of the landlord and the petitioner had to

incur loss in his business due to the fact that he was not permitted to concentrate on his business. It seems that there was a rent control proceeding

pending before this forum. The case of the petitioner is that so long as he continued to be the tenant under the control of the third respondent, he is

liable to utilise the services of respondents 1 and 2 after paying the necessary charges. An allocation is also made that even though he expressed his

willingness to execute necessary indemnity bond, his application for the grant of separate electricity connection was returned. The petitioner

submits that he is willing to abide by all the conditions and Rules prescribed by the electricity board to get a separate service connection. Though

notice has been served on the third respondent, none appears.

Mr. N. Kannadasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to me a decision rendered by K. Venkataswami, J. In R. Padmanabhan v. The

Assistant Engineer, Madras Electricity System (D) Arambakka and Anr. W.P. 8080 of 1989 dated 8.9.1989. In that case, the learned Judge has

come to the conclusion that a person in occupation of the premises under the cover of an injunction order granted by a Civil Court cannot be said

to be in unlawful occupation of the premises and that the injunction would not have been granted, and that the petitioner therein can be granted

electricity supply for the premises in question on his executing an indemnity bond in the form prescribed by the board.

Considering the arguments of Mr. N. Kannadasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and after considering the judgment rendered by

Venkataswami, J. in the above mentioned case and also on a perusal of the affidavit filed in-support of the petition, it is very clear that the

petitioner herein is a tenant under the third respondent, that the third respondent has filed R.C.O.P. No. 3846 of 1987 praying for eviction and the

petitioner has filed R.C.O.P. No. 171 of 1988 praying for payment of rent through Court, before the Court below and both the petitions are

pending before the Court of Small Causes, Madras. I am of the view that so long as the petitioner continues to be in possession of the suit

premises, it is to be taken that he is in lawful possession and he is entitled to get the electricity supply from respondents 1 and 2. Mr. N.

Muthuswamy, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has no objection to adopt the course as in W.P. No. 8080 of 1989 mentioned above.

As such, a direction is issued to respondents 1 and 2 to effect separate service connection to the shop occupied by the petitioner herein situated at

No. 1542, Annanagar Western Extension, Madras-600 101, on the petitioner executing an indemnity bond in the form prescribed by the

Electricity Board. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to Comply with the said order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.