SREEKUMAR P.P Vs. DEVADASAN .K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the party respondents before the learned Single Judge. The issue agitated in the writ petition is on a very narrow compass of whether it was proper for the appellants-landlords to have WA 1988/18 approached the Kerala State Electricity Board to effect disconnection of supply of electricity of the tenanted premises, wherein the petitioner in the writ petition was inducted lawfully. The appellants have filed the appeal on the sole ground that the writ petition is not maintainable for reason of the existence of alternate efficacious remedies; which the tenant has availed of, already. When it was brought to our notice that the landlords have filed a Rent Control Petition under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, we were of the prima facie opinion that the appeal is misconceived and the action of the landlords in effecting disconnection of the supply in the tenanted premises is mala fide and intended at subverting the course of law.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants would however insist that the writ petition was not maintainable. The learned Counsel took us through the provisions in the Rent Control Act and the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 (for brevity "Supply Code") to urge dismissal of the writ petition itself as not maintainable. Regulation 146 was pointed out to WA 1988/18 contend that a connection can be continued by an occupier of a building; in the context of the consumer requiring disconnection of the supply, only if the occupier is lawfully occupying the premises and has paid the electricity charges. Regulation 45(2) of the Supply Code is also pointed out to indicate that in the event of disconnection, there is requirement of a no objection certificate from the owner of the premises for the purposes of re-connection. Section 13 of the Rent Control Act is referred to contend that if at all the landlord interferes with the amenities enjoyed by the tenant, then the tenant has an effective alternate remedy by way of approaching the Accommodation Controller, which remedy the tenant has already availed of and there is no reason for the Writ Petition, which is intended at preempting a proper consideration by the Accommodation Controller. In fact, Section 13 speaks of a just and sufficient cause which has to be looked into by the Accommodation Controller and not by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Various proceedings taken up by the tenant for the purpose of disconnection is also pointed out to contend WA 1988/18 that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and had to be dismissed in limine. The learned Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in having directed re- connection; which he was incompetent to do under Article 226, is the forceful argument.

(3.) We have also heard the learned counsel for the party respondent/petitioner, who submits that the respondent had been away in connection with the passing out ceremony of his daughter at AFMC, Pune, when the disconnection was applied for by the landlords. When they returned in the night of 27.6.2018, there was no electricity connection in their tenanted premises. The learned counsel for the appellants then pointed out that in the Writ Petition a different ground has been taken that the tenant was away with the family in connection with the admission of his younger daughter to the Engineering College.