S PATTABIRAMAN Vs. S P CHANDRASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. R. P. No. 1072 of 1996 arises from a proceeding initiated by first respondent herein as O. S. No. 680 of 1993, on the file of the District Munsif's Court , tindivananm. That suit was one for injunction to restrain respondents 2 to 4 herein and also the petitioner herein from getting electric connection to the building mentioned in the plaint.

(2.) IN the plaint, it is averred that the first respondent is the owner of the building and the same was let out to late Singaram pillai,' who was running a' Raagi munay business. The tenant died about ten years back. It is further said that on the death of the tenant, the tenancy arrangement came to an end and the same stood terminated in law. It is said that there was electric connection extended to the said premises and the same was disconnected consequent to non-user. It is also said that the disconnection took place about six years back and the premises was also not used by any one after the death of the tenant, and the business was carried on by the tenant, which was solely owned by him. Petitioner herein, who is 4th defendant in the suit, is one of the sons of late Singaram Pillai. It is said that he took unlawful possession of the premises and thereafter began to make use of the same for the business activity. It is said that the petitioner herein is neither contractual nor statutory tenant under the Tamil Nadu buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and because he happened to be one of the legal heirs of the original tenant, that will not confer on him any right to claim benefits under the said Act. According to the plaintiff, petitioner is only a trespasser. It is said that the petitioner herein, on the basis of his relationship with the deceased tenant, applied to the Electricity Board, for getting electric connection. He also filed O. S. No. 846 of 1991 for injunction, to restrain the plaintiff in this case from interfering with his possession. Plaintiff apprehends that the Electricity Board may give connection to the petitioner at any time. According to plaintiff, since the petitioner is only a trespasser, the Board is not expected to give any service connection to the building.

(3.) IN C. R. P. No. 1078 of 1996, petitioner is the fourth defendant in the connected suit. Respondent therein is the plaintiff. That arises from a rent control proceeding initiated by petitioner as R. C. O. P. No. 7 of 1994, for restoration of amenity under Sec. 17 of the Rent Control Act. IN that petition, he said that his father was in occupation of the building, and, after his death, the petitioner is paying rent, and the landlord and tenant relationship is continuing. It is also said that he filed O. S. No. 848 of 1991, on the file of the Principal District Munsif's court, Tindivananm, for an injunction, to restrain the respondent (S. P. Chandrasekaran) from interfering with his possession, or from evicting him forcibly. It is averred that originally there was service connection, and that is an amenity to the building. Since that amenity has now been withheld in view of the objection raised by the respondent, he is entitled to invoke the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Rent Control Act to compel the landlord to restore the amenity.