B S DAVEY Vs. M CHITTI BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the tenant in R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992 on the file of the learned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. That application was filed by him against the present respondent who is the landlord under Sec.17(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 for restoration of the electricity amenity for the portion of ground floor bearing door No.35, Perumal 2nd Street, Purasawakkam, Madras, of which he is the tenant. THEre is no dispute that the revision petitioner is in occupation of the two room portion of the ground floor of door No.35 which has separate latrine and bath. According to him, the respondent landlord sought his eviction in R.C.O.P. No.69 of 1991 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. During the pendency of that application, the landlord disconnected the electricity of the petitioner's portion on 19.6.1991. So, he filed R.C.O.P. No.1890 of 1991 for restoration of the amenity. THE respondent landlord restored electricity on 9.10.1991 and on 20.11.1992 R.C.O.P.No.l890 of 1991 was dismissed. THE landlord again disconnected electricity on 19.8.1992 after the dismissal of R.C.O.P.No.69 of 1991 on 10.7.1992. On 25.11.1992 the tenant came forward with R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992. On 29.3.1993 learned Rent Controller allowed R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992 and directed the landlord to restore electricity connection within fifteen days from that date. THE landlord took up the matter in appeal in R.C.A. No.373 of 1993 before the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. On 19.1.1994 the appeal was allowed and the order of the learned Rent Controller was set aside. THE tenant preferred C.R.P. No. 1099 of 1994 in this Court against the said "order of the appellate authority. On 25.4.1994 Civil Revision Petition No. 1099 of 1994 was dismissed as not pressed.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, on 14.7.1993 tenant filed E.P. No.406 of 1993 in R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992 in the Court of Small Causes of Madras for execution of the order passed in R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992. This was during the pendency of R.C.A. No.373 of 1993. The records disclose that the stay petition in Miscellaneous Petition No.628 of 1993 in R.C.A. No.373 of 1993 had been dismissed on 30.4.1993. The mode of execution sought for was by way of direction to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kellys, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Bricklin Road, Madras-7 to give separate electricity connection to the portion in the occupation of the revision- petitioner. On 15.7.1993 the court ordered "Heard, Restore by 29.7.1993." On 10.9.1993 the execution petition was closed for the reason that the decree-holder himself represented that the direction had been complied with.

(3.) THIRU S.S.Trivedi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the landlord cannot file an execution petition under section 18 of the Rent Control Act in R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992 which is an application by the tenant for restoration of electricity. The court below has no power to entertain an application under Sec.18 of the Act. According to learned counsel, the tenant has obtained electricity service connection in his own name after carrying out the wiring work at his cost. Since the revision petitioner tenant has now become a direct consumer under the Electricity Board, any subsequent order of the court cannot affect his right. Once the order of learned Rent Controller is executed under the provisions of Sec.18 of the Act, no restoration is possible. It is not as if the tenant has obtained service connection as an extension from the landlord's Meter. Instead in E.P. No.406 of 1993 he was given separate service connection and he got a Meter installed in his own name. Restoration could only be of the status quo prevailing prior to the filing of R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992. There cannot now be a restoration by disconnecting the Meter which stands in the name of the tenant.