IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 16946 of 2011(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SIRAJ.A, ROSE HOUSE,PANOOR MURI,PALLANA.P.O., THRIKKUNNAPUZHA, ARATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA.PIN- 688 001. 2. ABDUL RAHIM,KUTTIVELIL HOUSE, FROM SHEHEER MANZIL, PANOOR MURI,THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK,PIN-690 515. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU SRI.B.K.RAJAGOPAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.16946/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 26/11/1994 P2 COPY OF THE RENT DEED DATED 14/01/1991 EXECUTED BY SHRI.A.K.MUHAMMED KUNJU IN FAVOUR OF EXECUTANTS IN EXT.P1. P3 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20/08/2010 P4 COPY OF THE LEASE DEED P5 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P7 COPY OF THE REPORT. P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/10/2010. P9 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P10 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P11 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16946 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging Ext.P11 order issued by the 1st respondent, in exercise of the appellate powers vested on him under Section 13(6) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 2. The 2nd respondent is the tenant in occupation of a building owned by the petitioner herein. The 2nd respondent had approached the Accommodation Controller in Ext.P5 petition, filed under Section 13 of the Act, seeking direction for restoration of electric supply to the tenanted premises bearing Numbers 13/257, 13/258 and 13/260. According to the 2nd respondent, he was enjoying electric supply from an electric connection, bearing consumer No.4977. It was alleged that the said amenity was withheld by the petitioner by requesting for 2 W.P.(C) No.16946 of 2011 disconnection of supply under the above said electric connection, without knowledge of the 2nd respondent. 3. After conducting due enquiry, the Accommodation Controller had disposed of Ext.P5 petition, holding that the relief sought for by the 2nd respondent could not be allowed since there was no electric connection provided to the fruit stall occupied by the 2nd respondent. In Ext.P8 order, the Accommodation Controller further found that, validity of the agreement stood expired as on the date of Ext.P5 petition, and in view of the fact that the electric supply provided in the premises was unauthorised and it was not within the knowledge of the petitioner herein. The Accommodation Controller also pointed out that, the authorities of the Kerala State Electricity Board in a statement filed before him had pointed out that, the electric connection provided under the Consumer No.4977 was installed at the first floor of the building and that no supply was given to the ground floor to the fruit stall, from that connection. On the basis of the above findings, the Accommodation Controller found no reason to pass any order or to issue any direction as 3 W.P.(C) No.16946 of 2011 contemplated under Section 13 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by Ext.P8, the 2nd respondent preferred appeal before the 1st respondent. Through Ext.P11 the impugned order, the 1st respondent had reversed the findings of the Accommodation Controller and directed the petitioner herein to restore the amenity by providing electric supply to the premises occupied by the 2nd respondent, by issuing necessary consent to the authorities of the KSEB, within 7 days of receipt of that order. It is further found that on failure of the petitioner to comply with the directions, the Assistant Engineer of the KSEB should take necessary action for providing connection to the leased premises without consent of the petitioner. 5. Sri.George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil) learned counsel appearing for the petitioner advanced vehement arguments before us that the 1st respondent had failed in appreciating the facts and circumstances in its real perspective. The tenanted premises was not having any electric connection and even assuming that the 2nd respondent was enjoying supply of electrical energy drawn 4 W.P.(C) No.16946 of 2011 from Consumer No.4977, it was only an unauthorised usage and such an amenity could not be directed to be restored, is the contention. Learned counsel drawn our attention to Ext.P7 which is the report submitted by the Assistant Engineer of the KSEB before the Accommodation Controller. It will indicate that only three light points, two fan points and two plug points alone were provided from the Consumer No.4977. Moreover it is pointed out that, the electricity connection under Consumer No.4977 now stand disconnected. Since the said connection is not provided or installed within the premises occupied by the 2nd respondent, it is not an amenity which was legally existent and the appellate authority went highly erred in directing restoration of such an amenity, is the contention. 6. On a perusal of the operative portion of the impugned order we realise that, the appellate authority had not issued any direction to provide the amenity of electric supply in any illegal manner. On the other hand, the direction is only to the extent of compelling the petitioner to issue consent for the purpose of availing electric connection 5 W.P.(C) No.16946 of 2011 in the tenanted premises. Hence, we are of the prima facie opinion that what was directed is only a restoration of the amenity of electric supply in the premises which the tenant was evidently enjoying. 7. A legal question raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the amenity which is now ordered to be restored was not an amenity either provided by the landlord or which was enjoyed by the tenant in a legal manner. We notice that, after appreciation of the factual aspects prevailing, the appellate authority had arrived at a conclusion that the tenant was enjoying electric supply in the premises, taken from Consumer No.4977. The recitals in the lease agreement was also taken note of by the appellate authority in order to hold that, by virtue of the terms of the lease agreement, the 2nd respondent was enjoying the amenity in question. The appellate authority placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Kuttan V. Fathima (2001(2) KLT 6) in support of the above findings. In the said decision, a Division Bench of this Court held that, what is significant is whether the landlord 6 W.P.(C) No.16946 of 2011 had interfered with enjoyment of any amenity and it need not necessarily be an interference with an amenity provided by the landlord. In the jurisdiction vested under Article 226 we are not supposed to reappreciate factual aspects or to interfere with the findings on the factual aspects entered into by the authorities. It is evident that there is a specific finding to the effect that the tenanted premises was having the amenity of electric supply. That being so, we do not find any reason to interfere with the direction issued by the appellate authority for restoration of such an amenity in a legal manner. 8. Further, Sri.George Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner, put forth another argument that a direction for providing a fresh electric connection by giving consent is totally beyond the scope of Section 13 of the Act, since it will not come within the purview of a direction for restoration of an amenity which was already enjoyed by the tenant. We could not agree with the said argument, because the specific finding arrived on by the appellate authority is to the effect that the 2nd respondent/ tenant was 7 W.P.(C) No.16946 of 2011 enjoying the amenity of electric supply in the tenanted premises. 9. We do not think that there is any material illegality or irregularity or unsustainability in the process of the decision making, culminated in the impugned order which need be interfered in exercise of discretionary power vested on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/