IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:- 15.04.2009 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P. JYOTHIMANI and The Honourable Mrs. Justice ARUNA JAGADEESAN W.A. No.1396 of 2007 and M.P. No.2 of 2007 S.A. Ponnappan ... Appellant/ 3rd Respondent ..Vs.. 1. J.A. Bathurujaman ...ISt Respondent/ Petitioner 2. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. by its Chairman, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 3. The Junior Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Padi, Chennai – 600 050. ... Respondents 2 and 3/ Respondents 1 and 2 Appeal filed against the order dated 30.08.2007 passed in W.P. No.20103 of 2007 on the file of this Court presented under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to give electricity service connection in the name of the petitioner in respect of the shop bearing door No. 262 M.T.H. Road, padi, Chenani 600 050 occupied by the petitioner as tenant . For Appellant : Mr. M. Devendran For Respondents : Mr. P. Rathnavel for R1 Mr. A. Selvendran for R2 and R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by P. JYOTHIMANI, J.) The third respondent in the writ petition has filed this appeal, aggrieved over the order dated 30.08.2007 passed by the learned Judge in W.P. No.20103 of 2007, by which, the learned Judge has directed the Electricity Board to provide electricity connection to the first respondent herein within a period of two weeks. 2. The appellant, who is the landlord of the shop premises bearing Door No.262, M.T.H. Road, Padi, Chennai – 600 050, leased out the same to the first respondent herein on a monthly rent of Rs.1,150/-. The appellant appears to have filed R.C.O.P. No.5 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur for eviction against the first respondent on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and the said petition is pending. 3. It is the case of the first respondent that the appellant/landlord has failed to pay the electricity charges, which resulted in disconnection of electricity. In such circumstances, the first respondent filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No.16 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur under Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for restoration of electricity supply. The first respondent also filed M.P. No.27 of 2007, praying for interim restoration of electricity service connection. Learned Rent Controller, by an order dated 10.4.2007, granted interim order, permitting restoration of electricity supply. 4. The allegation of the first respondent is that in spite of this interim order, the same was not complied with by the appellant. At the same time, the appellant-landlord filed a petition to set aside the ex parte interim order on the basis that the first respondent is in arrears of rent, apart from payment of electricity charges and the said petition is also pending before the learned Rent Controller. 5. In the meantime, taking note of the fact that the appellant-landlord refused to provide electricity connection, the first respondent herein approached the Electricity Board viz. second and third respondents herein for restoration of electricity connection. When the said respondents failed to do the same, the first respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition for restoration of electricity connection. Learned Judge, taking note of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (hereinafter referred to as "Code") and also taking note of the fact that the first respondent is in lawful occupation, directed the Electricity Board to restore electricity connection, if the first respondent complied with all the requirements as per the Regulations of the Electricity Board. 6. Mr. Devendran, learned counsel appearing for the landlord-appellant would vehemently contend that once the first respondent-tenant approached the Rent Controller under Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for the purpose of restoration of electricity connection, especially when there is a provision for interim order and the same has also been obtained, it is for the first respondent to work out his remedy before the Rent Controller under the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, which is a special enactment for rent control proceedings. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also submits that the first respondent is in arrears of rent and even he refused to pay the arrears of electricity charges. When the first respondent was not in lawful occupation, it is not proper for the learned Judge to direct the Electricity Board to restore electricity connection. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that when the landlord/appellant has deliberately refused to obey the interim order of restoration of electricity connection granted by the learned Rent Controller, the first respondent is definitely right in invoking the writ jurisdiction for restoration of electricity connection. As per Rule 27 of the Code, the first respondent can request for electricity supply. 9. The Code was notified by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission as per Notification No. TNERC/SC/7/1 dated 21.7.2004 by virtue of the powers conferred under the Electricity Act, 2003 (Central Act 36 of 2003). Rule 27 of the Code deals with requisitions for supply of energy. In the said Rule, with regard to supply, Clause 4 reads as follows:- " 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 refused 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Form 6 of the 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." 10. The above provision makes it clear that an intending consumer, who is in lawful occupation, can apply to the Electricity Board, with the consent of the landlord, for supply of electricity. In case if the owner refused to give consent letter or he is not in station, the consumer shall produce a proof that he is in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond in Form 6 of the Annexure III to this Code indemnifying the Electricity Board against any loss on account of disputes arising out of effecting service connection. 11. In such view of the matter, when there is a provision as enacted by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission in accordance with Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Central Act 36 of 2003), certainly the lawful occupant has a right to have the electricity supply and if he is compelled to lead his life in darkness, it would amount to make him lead an animal life, which is not the purport of the Constitution. Therefore, we are of the view that the said Clause confers such valuable right to the occupant. 12. As per Section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the landlord can approach the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default of payment of rent etc. and get remedy. It is the contention of the landlord that when the first respondent/tenant has already approached the Rent Controller by filing a petition under Section 17 of the Act, he should not have approached the writ Court. It is not as if the landlord is left in lurch. In the circumstances, where the tenant is in default and when the rent control proceedings is pending, the landlord has a right to approach the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act for an appropriate direction. 13. In such view of the matter, it is not possible to accept the contention of the appellant as if when there is an effective alternative remedy available to the first respondent, he ought not to have approached the Electricity Board for the purpose of restoration of electricity supply. We see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge. The writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. Considering the fact that the appellant, being the landlord, has filed eviction petition on the ground of wilful default and the tenant has also approached the Rent Controller for restoration of electricity under Section 17 of the Code, we are inclined to direct the Rent Controller to dispose of both the petitions at an early point of time. It is submitted that the rent control petition is posted to 1.6.2009. Hence, the learned Rent Controller is directed to dispose of both R.C.O.Ps. at an early point of time, by giving opportunity to both the parties, in any event within a period of four months from 1st June, 2009 and report the same to this Court. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ssa. To 1. The Chairman, The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 2. The Junior Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Padi, Chennai – 600 050. 3. The Rent Controller District Munsif, Ambattur copy to The Section Officer Judicial Department (AF Section) High Court, Madras (For watching report) 1 cc to Mr.P. Rathnavel, Advocate, SR. 14033 1 cc to MR.M. Deveneran, Advocate, Sr. 13992 W.A. No.1396 of 2007 and connected M.P. RSY (CO) kk 21/4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/