P DAMODARAN Vs. M VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner one P. Damodaran had filed the above petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.6735/85 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, and quash the same.

(2.) The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The respondent herein is a tenant in respect of the northern portion of the shed in Door No.59 (Old Door No.65), Nelson Manicka Mudaliar Road, in the site bearing Plot No.2 and situate at Vada Agaram Village, Madras, comprised in part of Old R.S.No.17/1 and 17/2-A, part of T.S.No.1/7 in Block No.4, covering 300 sq.ft. area and behind Southern Furrace Company. The lease is governed by a lease deed dated 6.10.1980. In the lease deed the lessee is mentioned and the Proprietorship firm to which one Mr. M. Viswanathan is the proprietor. Clause 7 of the lease deed relates to the electricity supply which is as under: "The lessor shall help and co-operate with the lessee in his application to the Madras Electricity Board for the purpose of getting the necessary power connection for running the Industry. All the expenses in regard to the securing of such connection from the Madras Electricity Board by way of security deposit, and other installation expenses will be borne only by the lessee. A separate meter will be fixed on the demised premises at the cost of the lessee." There is also another clause viz., clause 9 (b) in the lease deed, relating to the supply of electricity which is as follows: "

(3.) After purchase the new landlord, viz., the petitioner herein, out off the electricity supply to the respondent. According to the case of the petitioner the respondent was illegally using the electricity with an understanding with the previous landlord and that there was an inspection by the staff of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board which prompted the petitioner to discontinue the supply of electricity to the respondent"s portion. The petitioner was compelled to resort to the action so as to prevent any prosecution under the Indian Electricity Act by the Department. The petitioner has not shifted the electricity control switch and he wanted to avoid any action being taken against him. So the petitioner disconnected the electricity supply and on such disconnection the respondent instituted a complaint in C.C.No.6735 of 1985 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent has also filed a rent control petition for the restoration of the electricity supply, which according to the respondent is an amenity, and in view of the pendency of the civil proceeding under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, the respondent cannot start criminal proceedings under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act. Hence both on the ground that the action of the petitioner disconnecting the electricity supply will not amount to an offence under section 40 of, the Indian Electricity Act and also on the ground that the prosecution is not sustainable in view of the pendency of the rent control proceedings for the restoration of electricity supply, the petitioner prays for quashing the complaint made by the respondent before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras.