This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent Electricity Board (ASEB) to provide direct electric connection to the tenanted premises under the occupation of the petitioner on regular basis. 2. Petitioner is a tenant under respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of a room measuring 18' x 6' which was taken on rent by an oral agreement from the predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in 1950. In the tenanted room, the petitioner is doing his sweetmeat business. However, dispute has arisen when electricity supplied from the domestic electricity connection to the tenanted premises in question was disconnected by the Board on the ground that electricity can not be supplied by the domestic consumer of electricity to the premises which is a a commercial concern as separate connection meant for commercial purpose is required to be obtained for those business premises. Grievance of the petitioner is that earlier disconnection was not restored by the respondent ASEB in spite of petitioner's repeated requests resulting his business loss and inconvenience. 3. Petitioner's further allegation is that though the petitioner has been paying lump sump electricity charge as fixed by the respondent landlord at the rate of Rs. 250 PM and the same was enhanced to Rs. 1,000 finally. As the petitioner objected the enhancement from Rs.250 the respondent landlord refused to accept the rent and therefore, petitioner deposited rent in the Court from 1981. Further allegation of the petitioner is that respondent landlord disconnected the electric connection and in a proceeding under section 144 CrPC landlord (2nd party therein) directed ex parte to restore the electricity on the ground that the petitioner is the recognised tenant, that there is likelihood of breach of peace. Petitioner also alleges that huge amount as advance payment has not been adjusted by the landlord. 4. To make out a case under Article 226 invoking writ Court's jurisdiction, petitioner contends that after such disconnection petitioner approached the respondent ASEB to give direct connection to the tenanted premises in the name of the petitioner as commercial supply of electricity facility so that the petitioner can continued his sweetmeat business which is his only livelihood. ASEB refused to give separate connection without the consent of the landlord and notice was issued to the landlord (Annexure C). ASEB refused to give separate connection without the consent of the landlord and notice was issued to the landlord (Annexure C). This notice was issued to the landlord accusing unauthorised extension of load and utilising in commercial purpose against meter No. 10119675, Bill No.M-8-5-30 and asked to disconnect the same within seven days failing which action be taken for violating the terms and conditions of supply. 5. Petitioner's case is that due to the disconnection on the ground of supply of electricity from domestic meter of the landlord, petitioner approached the ASEB to give direct commercial connection in the name of the tenant/petitioner and this could not be done by ASEB due to the bar imposed by the Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1988 wherein condition No.3 (A) (iii) stipulates that an applicant who is not the owner of the premises for which electric connection is applied for, required to submit No objection certificate as consent letter with an Indemnity Bond against any loss for said service connection with additional security. Apparently petitioner invokes Court's jurisdiction to strike off this condition on the ground unconstitutional, discriminatory and obnoxious which place the landlord in an advantageous position prejudicing the right of the tenants like petitioner. 6. It is undisputed that there is a landlord and tenant relationship between both the parties and the facts enumerated in the writ petition postulates a case under section 5 of the Assam Rent Control Act and squarely falls under the jurisdiction of the said Act and proper forum for any dispute is the civil Court. 7. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 through the Executive Engineer, ASEB. It is averred that the writ petition is not maintainable. That the Board a body corporate constituted by State Govt under the provisions of section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (Act) and responsible for generation, transmission and distribution of electricity throughout the State of Assam and for that purpose Board framed rules incorporating its Terms and Conditions of Supply, 1988 and Schedule of Tariff, 1992 for supply of electricity to various categories of consumers and the said Schedule of Tariff framed under statutory provisions having force of law. It is further averred that under clause 21 of Boards Terms and Conditions of Supply, contravention of any provision of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, the Electricity Act and Rules governing the supply and use of electricity shall be treated as malpractice and for this liable to penalty assessed under clause 22 of Terms and Conditions. That as the respondent found in indulging malpractice after proper enquiry, the electric line was disconnected under clause 23 (e) of the said Terms and Conditions. The stand of ASEB is that as no consent letter under clause 3 (A) (iii) of the said Terms and Conditions furnished by the writ petitioner, Board cannot give direct connection. 8. From the above discussion the point for consideration is whether clause 3 (A) (iii) of the Terms and Conditions is unconstitutional as it violates any legal or constitutional right of the petitioner. The admitted position is that the petitioner is the tenant under respondent Nos 4 and 5. In that case petitioner's right originates from the lease agreement verbal or written in which certain conditions in respect of tenancy rights emanates. His rights and interest always controlled by the provisions Of Rent Control Act in force for the time being. ASEB as doing the business of selling electricity to the consumers of various categories and to facilitate proper and smooth selling, terms and conditions are put forth. Being a statutory body created under an Act its rules and regulations under which terms conditions for sale etc are formulated has the statutory force and in this respect clause 3 (A) (iii), 22 and 23 are categorical, distinct and clear wherein procedure for compliance of installation/connection of electricity and effect of violation thereto has been provided. In that case no electric connection can be given by the Board without consent certificate from the actual owner, the landlord. 9. The position of law is that tenants right to the premises arise from the agreement of lease for rent. His right and conditions for enjoyment of the tenanted property entirely based on the terms and conditions of the said property. Petitioner's contentions is that they were paying monthly lump sum rent which included electricity charges which was enhanced time to time and when the dispute has arisen regarding alleged exorbitant rise of rent amount and landlord refused to accept rent, petitioner deposited rent by challan in the Court. Petitioner's contentions is that they were paying monthly lump sum rent which included electricity charges which was enhanced time to time and when the dispute has arisen regarding alleged exorbitant rise of rent amount and landlord refused to accept rent, petitioner deposited rent by challan in the Court. This Court can not go to the evidential facts whether there is existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or whether tenancy has been expired due to default or required to be evicted on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord. Further it is also not for this writ Court to make a roving enquiry whether the derivative right of the petitioner as tenant still exist or not. Admittedly some cases are pending before the civil Court for trial of the cases under the Rent Control Act and admittedly this civil right would be decided in those civil litigations and in that case petitioner's right as tenant to the amenities shall continue or expire automatically in terms of the lease agreement only. In view of this legal position petitioner's right as tenant for direct connection of the electricity or commercial or domestic purpose is not sustainable and invocation of writ jurisdiction is misconceived to strike off the clause 3 (A) (iii) of the Terms and Conditions as no statutory provisions/clauses can be struck down where only civil right is involved. Petitioner cannot claim for a direction to the ASEB for installing direct electricity connection as the petitioner has no permanent title and ownership over the premises where his derivative right subject to the consent of the actual owner. Respondent ASEB can not have any power as such to override the civil right of the land owner and cannot give direct connection. 10. In view of the above discussion, I hold that he petitioner as tenant under the landlord has no authority or legal right to have direct electric connection of electricity is not a constitutional or legal right as his right of tenancy with its amenities is subject to the terms and conditions of lease agreement/consent which is a purely civil right. In view of the above discussion, I hold that he petitioner as tenant under the landlord has no authority or legal right to have direct electric connection of electricity is not a constitutional or legal right as his right of tenancy with its amenities is subject to the terms and conditions of lease agreement/consent which is a purely civil right. In that view of the matter clause 3 (A) (iii) of Terms and Conditions is not unconstitutional and gives the discriminatory advantage to the landlord over the tenant, by the provisions of that clause and there is no violation of Article 14,19(1) (g), 300A and 301 of the Constitution. 11. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.