IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 766 of 2005(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.35898/2004 Dated 24/02/2005 .................... APPELLANT(S) / 2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- KASTHOORIVAYALKUNI MOOSA HAJI, S/O. KUNHIED, CHERODE AMSOM, DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- 1. N.KUNHIMOOSA, VAHIDA MANZIL, P.O. PANUR, THALASSERY TALUK. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, VADAKARA (NORTH). ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R1 SMT.S.LAKSHMY SRI.SEEMA PARTHASARATHY SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB SRI.B.KRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY, Ag.CJ & V.GIRI, J. =========================== W.A.No.766 of 2005 =============================== Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009. J U D G M E N T Koshy, Ag.CJ. Writ petitioner is a tenant in the appellant's building. The tenant approached the KSEB for an electrical connection. Learned Judge allowed the same in terms of Clause 13(4) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Further KSEB issued charges payable by the petitioner which has been paid in time. There was also a direction to deposit cash security to cover two months electricity bill and execution of proper bond by the petitioner undertaking to clear arrears in the event of default. After complying with the judgment connection was given. The contention of the appellant is that the petitioner has failed to pay the rent and he was not doing any business. Appellant filed a rent control case before the Rent Control Court, which was rejected. Petitioner was given electric connection in his name, he was a tenant and no liability will occur to the appellant as it was given in the petitioner's own name with sufficient undertaking. So we W.A.No.766 of 2005 2 see no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment. But we make it clear that rent control proceedings or any other proceedings shall be disposed of untrammelled by the observations in the impugned judgment or in this judgment. Writ appeal is disposed of as above. J.B.KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. V.GIRI, JUDGE. bkn/-