VINCENT Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is conducting an educational institution in the name and style of Kayvees Tax Study Centre, Cheruthoni, Idukki, is aggrieved by the stand of the respondents that the regular electricity connection to the premises would be granted only on the petitioner complying with the provisions of Regulation 45 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014, and in particular, the requirement that insists on an applicant, who is not an owner of the premises but an occupier of the premises, to furnish a no objection certificate from the owner of the premises, along with one of the documents listed at Clauses (1) to (vi) in Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 45. It is the case of the petitioner that, along with Ext. P5 application, that was submitted by him for obtaining regular electricity connection to the premises, he had submitted the certified copy of the lease agreement, which is one of the document that is contemplated in Regulation 45, and also Ext. P2 consent of the owner of the premises to the grant of regular electricity connection to the premises. The respondents, however, pointed out that, in Ext. P5 application submitted by' him for electricity connection, in Column No. 20 (b), the owner of the premises had not signed the required declaration indicating his consent to the grant of electric connection to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, a dispute arose in connection with the tenancy, between the owner of the premises and the petitioner, subsequent to the issuance of Ext. P2 consent letter, and under those circumstances, the owner of the premises refused to sign the declaration in Ext. P5 application. It is contended that inasmuch as Ext. P2 consent letter has already been issued to him, the respondents should not insist on a signature of the owner in Ext. P5 application form as a precondition for the grant of electric connection to him.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

(3.) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, although Regulation 45(2) insists that an applicant, who is not an owner but an occupier of the premises, shall furnish a no objection certificate from the owner of the premises, along with any of the documents listed at Clauses 1 to 6 in Sub-Regulation (1), the insistence by the respondents on a no objection certificate from the owner, even in a situation where there is a tenancy dispute between the owner of the premises and the tenant who is seeking an electric connection to the premises, would tantamount to ignoring the legal position that obtains under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Control Act') and the rights accruing to the tenant thereunder. I am of the view that, in cases where a tenant is continuing in possession of the premises, in his capacity as a statutory tenant, it would not be open to the respondent Board to insist upon a no objection certificate from the owner of the premises, to support an application filed by the tenant for electricity connection to the demised premises. Although the insistence by the respondent Board may be on the basis of Statutory Regulations, in this case the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014, the said requirement under a subordinate legislation must yield to the rights accruing to the tenant under the primary legislation - the Rent Control Act. I, therefore, dispose the Writ Petition by directing the respondents to consider and process Ext. P5 application submitted by the petitioner for electricity connection in the light of Exts. P1 and P2 documents produced by him, and without insisting on a signature of the owner of the premises, in the column dealing with consent in the application form submitted by the petitioner. The respondents shall do the needful to process the application preferred by the petitioner as directed above within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.