Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 256 (MAD)

N. Pushpavalli & Others v. A. Ganesan & Another

2009-01-22

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment :- Animadverting upon the order dated 06.08.2007 passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil court, Chennai made in I.A.No.9699 of 2007 in O.S.No.8185 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petitioner as stood exposited from the records as well as the submission made by both the sides could pithily and briefly be set out thus: The first respondent/plaintiff -Ganesan filed the suit in O.S.No.8185 of 2005 seeking the following reliefs: .- to quit deliver and hand over vacant possession of the house, ground and premises at No.9/364, SIDCO Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049, which is more fully described in the schedule annexed. .- to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs.3,000/- per month towards damages for the wrongful use and occupation, from the date of plaint till date of actual delivery of possession. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants/revision petitioners, who are in occupation of the suit property, as they were earlier paying the electricity consumption charges, tried to pay the electricity charges and tendered the amount but to their shock and surprise, the Electricity Department, refused to receive it on the ground that the electricity connection stands in the name of the first respondent/plaintiff consequent upon the sale deed executed by one P.R.Nataraja Devar in favour of Ganesan/the plaintiff. Whereupon I.A.No.9699 of 2007 was filed by the petitioners herein seeking direction from the Court so as to enable the defendants to pay the electricity consumption charges but the lower Court dismissed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said dismissal order, this revision is focussed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that if the plaintiff fails to pay the electricity consumption charges, the electricity officials would disconnect the supply whereby, the petitioners would be put to great hardship. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board would submit that the Board would receive the consumption charges only from the person in whose name the electricity supply connection exists; whereas in this case, the electricity connection is not standing in the name of the defendants. 6. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board would submit that the Board would receive the consumption charges only from the person in whose name the electricity supply connection exists; whereas in this case, the electricity connection is not standing in the name of the defendants. 6. Be that as it may, it is the specific case of the defendants in the suit that the first revision petitioner/first defendants husband P.R. Nataraja Devar, being a drunkard, was made to execute the sale deed in favour of Ganesan, which is non-est in the eye of law; when such is the position, Electricity Board need not insist upon the fact that the electricity supply is not standing in the name of the defendants. It all depends on the final outcome in the suit as to who is the real owner of the suit property. 7. In this factual matrix, I am of the considered opinion that without prejudice to the rival contentions of the parties to the lis, the Electricity Board shall receive the consumption charges from the defendants/revision petitioners. Accordingly, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the I.A is allowed to that much extent. 8. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.