THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5364 of 2010 September 16, 2011 Between: Kona Suryavathi, W/o.Veereswara Rao ... Petitioner And Rekadi Satyam, S/o.Rama Swamy ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5364 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is owner of shop room bearing No.45-1-36 situated at Jagannathapuram, Kakinada. The respondent is the tenant. Alleging that the petitioner is interfering with his possession of the suit schedule shop, he filed the suit being O.S.No.766 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada seeking permanent injunction. In the said suit, the respondent filed I.A.No.392 of 2010 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking a direction to the petitioner to restore electricity connection. In the affidavit accompanying the said application, he alleged that on 05.1.2010 the landlord disconnected electricity connection to his shop. This application was opposed by the petitioner by filing counter affidavit. It was contended that there was no electricity connection to suit schedule property at any point of time; the suit schedule property was leased out without any electricity and that the registered lease deed does not refer to electricity service connection. After considering the rival contentions, the Court below passed an order on 22.7.2010 in favour of the respondent relying on the lease deed, which provided that that tenant has to bare the electricity charges. In this civil revision petition, the Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court below was in error in directing the petitioner to restore electricity connection when there was no such connection to the shop let out to the respondent. Whether or not there was electricity connection to the suit schedule shop, is a question of fact. The Court below after perusing the registered lease deed, which is admittedly executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent, recorded a finding that the tenant has to bare the electricity charges from the date of lease deed. From this, an inference can be drawn in favour of the respondent. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. _________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) September 16, 2011 YS