1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)NO.10683 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 S.Chandra ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Assistant Engineer, Office of the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rameshwaram,Ramanathapuram District. 2.V.Krishnan Thiruvedhi ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to restore the petitioner electricity connection in No.B/93 in shop old Door No.1/47D, in New No.1/83B of Rameshwaram Municipality, composed in Melaratha Veethi, Rameshwaram, Ramanathapuram District which is possession of the petitioner in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu For R - 1 : Mrs.S.Srimathi for S.M.S.Johnny Basha, Standing Counsel for TNEB. For R - 2 : Mr.L.Madhusudhanan O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a direction to the Electricity Board to restore electricity supply connection to the premises of Door No.1/47D, in New No.1/83B of Rameshwaram Municipality, composed in Melaratha Veethi, Rameshwaram, Ramanathapuram District. 2. Heard Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.S.Srimathi learned counsel representing the first respondent and Mr.L.Madhusudhanan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 3. Claiming to be in lawful occupation of the shop in question, the petitioner in this writ petition lodged a caveat on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rameshwaram in April 2010, impleading the landlord, who is the second respondent herein and also impleading one Thillakan, who was said to be a tenant. After the caveat was lodged, the second respondent herein, who is the landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Controller, Rameshwaram seeking eviction of the said person by name Thillakan. The eviction petition was filed only in July 2010. Despite the petitioner having lodged a caveat in April itself, he was not made even a formal party to the eviction petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. It appears that Thillakan remained ex-parte in the eviction proceedings. Therefore, an order of eviction was passed on 08.07.2010. The order of eviction is also put into execution and the petitioner herein has taken action to file obstruction. 5. In the meantime, the first respondent Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has disconnected the electricity supply on the basis of the ex-parte order of eviction passed against the aforesaid Thillakan. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 6. The narration of facts given above would show that there is a bono fide dispute between the parties. The sequence of events would show that the petitioner did not suddenly jump into the scene after the order of eviction was passed against Thillakan. The petitioner entered the fray much before the petition for eviction was filed, by lodging a caveat. Depending upon whether the petitioner herein was in lawful or unlawful occupation, the second respondent herein ought to have taken recourse to two alternative procedures. One alternative available to the second respondent was to go to the civil Court and seek an injunction, if the second respondent thought that the petitioner was not in possession. Alternatively, the second respondent ought to have at least impleaded the petitioner as a formal party to the petition for eviction before the Rent Controller. Having received the caveat well in advance, it was not proper for the second respondent to have failed to implead the petitioner as a party. 7. In such circumstances, the disconnection of electricity supply sought by the second respondent on the basis of the order of eviction passed against another person cannot be sustained. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed directing the first respondent to restore the electricity service connection to the premises in question. But, I make it clear that I am not deciding the question as to whether the petitioner is in occupation or not and the question whether he is in lawful possession or not. These issues may be thrashed out by the second respondent in an appropriate proceedings. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Assistant Engineer, Office of the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rameshwaram,Ramanathapuram District. +1cc to Mr.M.Subbash Babu, Advocate, Sr.No.41967 W.P.(MD)NO.10683 of 2011 vsm/sma/13.12.2011/3c/2p https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/