High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 21-6-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMC.R.P.NPD No.1615 of 2006andM.P.No.1 of 20061.K.T.R.Chowdhry2.C.H.Chandrasekar Rao.. Petitioners vs1.G.Mohan2.Shanti.. RespondentsCivil revision petition preferred under Sec.25(1) of the Tamil NaduBuildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of1973 and Act 1 of 1980 against the judgment and decree passed in RCANo.1328 of 2005 dated 7.6.2006 by the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes,Chennai, (appellate authority), confirming the fair and decreetal orderpassed in RCOP No.964 of 2005 dated 25.11.2005 passed by the XVI Judge,Court of Small Causes at Chennai (Rent Controller).For Petitioners: Mr.Ashok Menon for M/s.Menon & GoklaneyAssociatesFor Respondents: Mr.T.V.Vineeth KumarORDERAn order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority namely VII Judge,Court of Small Causes, Chennai, affirming an order of dismissal passed bythe Rent Controller namely XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, inRCOP No.964 of 2005 filed under Sec.17(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act for restoration of amenity, is the subjectmatter of challenge in this revision.2.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.3.The case of the revision petitioners/tenants before the authoritiesbelow was that they became tenants in the year 1996 under the previousowner in respect of the shop premises for non-residential purposes; thatin the year 2002, the property was purchased by the present owner who isthe first respondent herein; that as per the agreement between theparties, there was an electricity service connection for the supply ofelectric energy to the premises; that there was a meter inside thepremises of the respondents; that the landlord used to send a chit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ calculating the electric energy actually consumed by the tenants, byentering the meter reading; that the payment was used to be made on orbefore 15th of every month; but, in the instant case, as usual, it was notdone by him; that the landlord also removed the fuse carrier on 13.5.2005;thereby, he has actually terminated the amenity, and under thecircumstances, the application was brought forth before the RentController. Added further in the course of the application that themonthly rental agreed was Rs.4,500/-; that besides that, a sum ofRs.3,500/- is being paid towards amenity charges, thus totalling toRs.8,000/-; that initially, there was a security deposit of Rs.3.25 lakhsmade, out of which Rs.2.25 lakhs was paid on 17.5.2002 itself; that thefirst respondent filed a RCOP for eviction on the ground of willfuldefault and additional accommodation; that the same was also pending; thatin that proceedings, this contention was also raised; that apart fromthat, while the first respondent threatened them to vacate, thepetitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.3079 of 2005 for a permanent injunctionrestraining the respondents herein from evicting them from the premises;that interim injunction application was also pending; that under thecircumstances, he has now disconnected the electricity service connectiondeliberately in order to force them to vacate from the property, andhence, it has become necessary to restore the amenity of the electricitysupply to the shop portion in the petition mentioned premises.4.The application was resisted by the landlord. While denying allthe contentions in respect of the restoration of the amenity, he wouldstate that the petitioners had not paid the rents for the past 8 months;that they have not even paid the electricity consumption charges duringthat period; that a separate meter and electricity service connection weregiven to the petitioners; that for the month of May 2005, the bill was tobe paid on or before 15th May, 2005; that the petitioners never cared topay the electricity charges; that the Officers of the Electricity Boarddisconnected the service connection on 20.5.2005; that the firstrespondent never disconnected the electricity service connection to thepetitioners' premises, and under the circumstances, the petition was to bedismissed.5.The Rent Controller, on enquiry, dismissed the application, and theappeal by the tenants was also dismissed. Under the circumstances, nowthis revision has been brought forth before this Court.6.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the revision petitioners, thelearned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, all thecircumstances were brought to the notice of the lower authorities thatthere was a security deposit of Rs.3.25 lakhs; that as per the decision ofthe Supreme Court, he could carry only one month advance, and the balancehas got to be adjusted towards the rental; that there was no rentaldefault; that this plea was raised even in the application filed by thelandlord for eviction on the ground of willful default; that there was athreat by him; that a suit has also been filed for permanent injunction;that it is also pending; that while the matter stood thus, the landlordhas mischievously instructed the Electricity Board officials in order tomake disconnection of the said electricity service connection; that he hasnot supplied the card enabling the petitioners to make the payment of theelectricity consumption charges; that all the above have been proved bynecessary evidence before the Rent Controller; but the Rent Controllerfailed to appreciate the same and has dismissed the application; that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellate forum has also not looked into any one of the factual or legalpositions and has also affirmed the order, and hence, the orders of theauthorities below have got to be set aside.7.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the first respondent, who,in short, would submit that the application itself was not maintainable;that there was a separate service connection and meter; that thedisconnection was made by the Electricity Board for the non-payment of theelectricity consumption charges; that under the circumstances, no questionof any direction under Sec.17(1) of the Act for restoration of the amenitywould arise, and hence, the revision has got to be dismissed.8.After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, thisCourt is of the considered opinion that the revision does not carry anymerit whatsoever. Admittedly, the revision petitioners have been thetenants under the previous owner, and from 2002 onwards, when the propertywas purchased by the present landlord, who is the first respondent herein,they were under him. According to them, there was a security deposit ofRs.3.25 lakhs. But, this was disputed by the opposite party. However, itis not the matter in issue in this proceedings. Admittedly, there hasbeen a service connection in respect of the three shops under theoccupation of the tenants. There is also a separate meter. Nowhere it ispleaded by the revision petitioners before this Court that there was anindependent sub meter, and calculation was used to be made, andaccordingly, they used to pay. That apart, in the instant case, thepetitioners have also produced Ex.R1, wherefrom it could be evident thatthere was a separate service connection. The payment of the electricityconsumption charges for the month of May 2005 was, admittedly, not madeand for the following months also. Now, at this juncture, it was the actof the Electricity Board in making disconnection of the serviceconnection. It would be more apt and appropriate to reproduce Sec.17(1)of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act as follows:"Sec.17(1): No landlord shall, without just or sufficient cause,cut off or withhold or cause to be cut off or withheld any ofthe amenities enjoyed by the tenant were in existence during theprevious tenancy."9.From the very reading of the above provision, it would be clearthat there could be a direction to the landlord to restore the amenity solong as the termination was done by him. But, in the instant case, it wasnot a termination of service connection by the landlord, but by theElectricity Board for the non-payment of the electricity consumptioncharges by the tenants in respect of the billing what was made. It isalso pertinent to point out that there is a separate service connectionfor the premises and also a separate meter. So long as the disconnectionwas an act of the Electricity Board, no direction could be given to thepresent landlord for the restoration. Under the circumstances, theapplication itself was not maintainable. The tenants who have not made thepayment of the electricity consumption charges, have suffered adisconnection in the hands of the Electricity Board for which the landlordwho is the first respondent herein, cannot be found fault with. Hence,the dismissal of the application by the authorities below were correctboth factually and legally. No infirmity or illegality is noticed in theorders of the authorities below. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.It is made clear that the order above will not in any way stand inthe way of the revision petitioners/tenants in following the proceduralformalities before the Electricity Board for the restoration of theelectric supply. 11.In the result, this civil revision petition fails, and the same isdismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed.nsv/Sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1. The Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2.The VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, (Rent Control Appellate Authority) Chennai.3.The XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, (Rent Controller)Chennai.+2 ccs to M/s.Menon & Goklaney, Advocate Sr.No.36549.+1 cc to Mr.T.V.Vineeth Kumar, Advocate Sr.No.36492.JRG(CO)dcp/22.8CRP NPD No.1615 of 2006