- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
V. Elangovan v. The Assistant Divisi...
Court Opinion — Structured Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner is a tenant (bearing No. 1541, Sree Krishna Nilayam) occupying a shop at Plot No. 1542, Annanagar Western Extension, Madras-600 101. The property is owned by the third respondent. Owing to ill-feelings between the landlord (third respondent) and the tenant (petitioner), the third respondent is said to have created trouble and disconnected the electricity connection to the shop. The petitioner filed a suit in the City Civil Court (O.S. No. 8007 of 1987) seeking a mandatory injunction directing the third respondent to hand over the electricity card and consequential reliefs so that electricity charges could be paid directly to the department. It is stated that the third respondent thereafter allegedly switched off the electricity at the meter located inside the landlord's premises, causing loss to the petitioner’s business.
There are concurrent rent-control proceedings: R.C.O.P. No. 3846 of 1987 filed by the third respondent seeking eviction, and R.C.O.P. No. 171 of 1988 filed by the petitioner seeking payment of rent through the Court. Both matters are pending before the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The petitioner sought a writ directing respondents 1 and 2 (the electricity authorities) to effect a separate service connection to the shop by way of mandamus or other appropriate writ. Notice was served on the third respondent but no one appeared for them. When the miscellaneous petition was heard by consent of both parties, the main writ petition was taken up for final disposal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a person in lawful possession as a tenant (including possession protected by injunction or pending rent-control proceedings) is entitled to a separate electricity service connection from the electricity authorities.
- Whether the petitioner can be granted such separate electricity supply on executing an indemnity bond in the form prescribed by the Electricity Board.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments (as recorded)
- The petitioner asserted he is a tenant occupying the shop and that the third respondent (landlord) caused disconnection and difficulties, including switching off the meter, resulting in business loss.
- The petitioner stated he was willing to execute the necessary indemnity bond and to comply with the Rules prescribed by the Electricity Board for obtaining a separate service connection, but his application for such connection was returned.
- Counsel for the petitioner (Mr. N. Kannadasan) relied on a prior decision (R. Padmanabhan v. The Assistant Engineer, Madras Electricity System (D) Arambakka and Anr. W.P. 8080 of 1989) holding that a person in occupation under an injunction is not in unlawful occupation and may be supplied electricity upon executing an indemnity bond in the prescribed form.
Respondents' Arguments (as recorded)
- Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 (Mr. N. Muthuswamy) raised no objection to adopting the course followed in W.P. No. 8080 of 1989 (the R. Padmanabhan decision) for granting supply upon execution of an indemnity bond.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R. Padmanabhan v. The Assistant Engineer, Madras Electricity System (D) Arambakka and Anr. W.P. 8080 of 1989 dated 8.9.1989 | The proposition that a person in occupation of premises under the cover of an injunction order granted by a Civil Court cannot be said to be in unlawful occupation, and such a person can be granted electricity supply on executing an indemnity bond in the form prescribed by the Board. | The court relied on this decision and adopted the same course: it directed respondents 1 and 2 to effect a separate service connection to the petitioner’s shop upon the petitioner executing the indemnity bond in the form prescribed by the Electricity Board. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the petitioner's affidavit, the factual matrix of tenancy and the pending rent-control proceedings (R.C.O.P. No. 3846 of 1987 by the landlord for eviction and R.C.O.P. No. 171 of 1988 by the petitioner for payment of rent through Court). On that basis the court held that so long as the petitioner continues in possession of the premises, such possession is to be treated as lawful. The court further considered the precedent relied upon by the petitioner (R. Padmanabhan) and noted that counsel for respondents 1 and 2 did not object to following that precedent. Applying that principle, the court concluded that the petitioner is entitled to receive electricity supply from respondents 1 and 2, subject to the condition of executing an indemnity bond in the form prescribed by the Electricity Board. The court therefore issued a direction to the electricity authorities to provide a separate service connection, and stipulated compliance within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The writ petition was allowed. The court directed respondents 1 and 2 to effect a separate service connection to the shop occupied by the petitioner at No. 1542, Annanagar Western Extension, Madras-600 101, upon the petitioner executing an indemnity bond in the form prescribed by the Electricity Board. Respondents 1 and 2 were ordered to comply within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. The court ordered no costs.
Implications: The direct effect is that the electricity authorities must grant a separate service connection to the petitioner on the stated condition and within the specified time. The opinion applies the cited precedent to the facts but does not articulate any broader new legal principle beyond the direct order made in this case.
1. When the miscellaneous petition came up for hearing by consent of both parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:
to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to effect separate service connection in the shop owned by the petitioner situate in Plot No. 1542, Annanagar, Western Extension, Madras-600 101 by issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order direction....
3. The petitioner claims to be a tenant bearing No. 1541, Sree Krishna Nilayam, Annanagar Western Extension, Madras-101 and the said property is owned by the third respondent. It seems due to certain ill-feelings between the landlord and the tenant/petitioner, the third respondent started creating troubles and disconnected the electricity connection in the said shop. It seems the petitioner had filed a suit on the file of City Civil Court in O.S. No. 8007 of 1987 praying for a mandatory injunction directing the third respondent to hand over the electricity card and consequential reliefs as against the electricity board to receive the electricity charges directly to the department Subsequently the third respondent started switching off the electricity connection from the meter itself which is located inside the premises of the landlord and the petitioner had to incur loss in his business due to the fact that he was not permitted to concentrate on his business. It seems that there was a rent control proceeding pending before this forum. The case of the petitioner is that so long as he continued to be the tenant under the control of the third respondent, he is liable to utilise the services of respondents 1 and 2 after paying the necessary charges. An allocation is also made that even though he expressed his willingness to execute necessary indemnity bond, his application for the grant of separate electricity connection was returned. The petitioner submits that he is willing to abide by all the conditions and Rules prescribed by the electricity board to get a separate service connection. Though notice has been served on the third respondent, none appears.
4. Mr. N. Kannadasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to me a decision rendered by K. Venkataswami, J. In R. Padmanabhan v. The Assistant Engineer, Madras Electricity System (D) Arambakka and Anr. W.P. 8080 of 1989 dated 8.9.1989. In that case, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that a person in occupation of the premises under the cover of an injunction order granted by a Civil Court cannot be said to be in unlawful occupation of the premises and that the injunction would not have been granted, and that the petitioner therein can be granted electricity supply for the premises in question on his executing an indemnity bond in the form prescribed by the board.
5. Considering the arguments of Mr. N. Kannadasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and after considering the judgment rendered by Venkataswami, J. in the above mentioned case and also on a perusal of the affidavit filed in-support of the petition, it is very clear that the petitioner herein is a tenant under the third respondent, that the third respondent has filed R.C.O.P. No. 3846 of 1987 praying for eviction and the petitioner has filed R.C.O.P. No. 171 of 1988 praying for payment of rent through Court, before the Court below and both the petitions are pending before the Court of Small Causes, Madras. I am of the view that so long as the petitioner continues to be in possession of the suit premises, it is to be taken that he is in lawful possession and he is entitled to get the electricity supply from respondents 1 and 2. Mr. N. Muthuswamy, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has no objection to adopt the course as in W.P. No. 8080 of 1989 mentioned above. As such, a direction is issued to respondents 1 and 2 to effect separate service connection to the shop occupied by the petitioner herein situated at No. 1542, Annanagar Western Extension, Madras-600 101, on the petitioner executing an indemnity bond in the form prescribed by the Electricity Board. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to Comply with the said order within eight weeks from the dale of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
Alert