Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the communication of the second respondent dated 26.04.2012 bearing Letter No.SE/CEDE/CGL/DFC/RCS/AS/ /D403/2012, along with the consequential communication of the second respondent dated 26.05.202, quash the same and forebear the respondents from disconnecting the electricity connection to the petitioner's plant situated at Plot No.K-2, SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Phase II, Arneri Village, Sriperumbudur 602 105. 2. Heard Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner representing M/s.G.R.Associates, and M/s.G.Vasudevan, P.Gunaraj, S.K.Rameshwar and M.Varunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents electricity Board 1 to 3 and Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. 3. Petitioner is a public limited company, which was originally named as M/s.Ennore Foundries Limited and later renamed as Hinduja Foundries Limited. Petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacturing various kinds of automotive iron castings since 2007. M/s.SIPCOT allotted 40 Acres of land to the petitioner at SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Phase II, Araneri Village, Sriperumbudur by allotment Order dated 3.3.2006 and the entire cost of lease except Rs.100/- has been paid. Petitioner has put up the industrial superstructure. The statutory permission have been granted by all the authorities. The respondent electricity Board supplied electricity under HT Service Connection No.573. Petitioner has also paid the earnest money deposit and additional current consumption deposit as required. The present issue relates to demand for additional current consumption deposit equivalent to four times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April. This demand is as per the amended regulation and the notification issued on 16.12.2011 based on TNERC's order. The impugned demand is challenged and a conditional order was passed and a certain amount has been paid. 4. The second respondent Superintending Engineer in W.P.No.15523 of 2012 filed a counter-affidavit dated 23.7.2012 in W.P.No.15523 of 2012. The counsel appearing for the respondents herein states that the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.No.15523 of 2012 may be treated as common counter-affidavit including this case. Para 9 and 11 of the counter-affidavit reads as follows:- "9. 4. The second respondent Superintending Engineer in W.P.No.15523 of 2012 filed a counter-affidavit dated 23.7.2012 in W.P.No.15523 of 2012. The counsel appearing for the respondents herein states that the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.No.15523 of 2012 may be treated as common counter-affidavit including this case. Para 9 and 11 of the counter-affidavit reads as follows:- "9. It is respectfully submitted that while clarification issued by our Head Quarters on 25.5.2012 sought by the Superintending Engineer/Tiruvannamalai the adequacy of security deposit while reviewing the Additional current consumption deposit, which is equivalent to four times of the monthly average of the electricity charges for the preceding twelve months prior to April 2012 is in order as per the amendment clause 5 (vii)(a), as the industry is situated in the SIPCOT land on 99 years long term lease." "11. It is respectfully submitted that in fact, the several Lessee of SIPCOT H.T. consumers commits default in payment of the electricity charges/Theft of energy deducted b the Anti Power Theft Squad and hence the TANGEDCO is unable to realize huge arrears pending from the aforesaid H.T. Consumers. Many Writ Petitions are pending before the Hon'ble High Court against the insisting of arrears left by the erstwhile H.T. Consumers of SIPCOT premises from the intending consumers who taken over the possession of aforesaid H.T. Premises." 5. On the issue relating to claim of additional current consumption deposit, it has already been held in W.P.No.15238 of 2012 etc. batch by a common order dated 23.7.2012 that as long as the Petitioner is the owner of the building and structure, he will fall within the definition of “owner” as per Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulation 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004. Relevant portion of the decision in paras 34 to 41 reads as follows:- 34. This demand made by the respondent electricity Board is challenged by the HT consumers who are under 99 years lease granted by the SIPCOT stating that they are the owners of the premises. According to the petitioners, consequent to the 99 years lease executed by M/s.SIPCOT for which full consideration has been paid and since they are the owners of the superstructure, namely, the industry for which electricity supply is granted, they are the owners of the premises. According to the petitioners, consequent to the 99 years lease executed by M/s.SIPCOT for which full consideration has been paid and since they are the owners of the superstructure, namely, the industry for which electricity supply is granted, they are the owners of the premises. It is stated that the word “owner of the premises” as stated in Clause (vii)(a) of the Regulation 5(5) cannot be interpreted to mean that the owner of the premises in these cases, is SIPCOT. On the contrary, each one of the HT industries who have put up building and superstructure on the leased out property will be the owners of the premises. Therefore, there is no need to get a consent in Form 5 of Annexure III to the Distribution Code from M/s.SIPCOT. 35. Sri Rahul Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.18802 of 2012 brought to the attention of the court the definition of the term “consumer's premises” defined under Regulation 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 as “the area served by a service connection” and the word “premises” defined under Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 as “any land, building or structure”. Regulation 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 reads as follows:- "(l) "Consumer's premises" means the area served by a service connection;" Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as follows:- "(51) "Premises" includes any land, building or structure;" 36. Therefore, on a reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the term “premises” under the Electricity Act, 2003 and under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 would also mean the building or structure to which the service connection is granted. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the factory building to which electricity service connection is given would satisfy the requirement of “premises” under the Act and the Regulations. In view of the above, the Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 will not apply to the case of the petitioners. The petitioners will be deemed to have the benefit of paying additional current consumption or security deposit in terms of Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 only. The amended Regulation will have no implication insofar as petitioners are concerned. 37. The petitioners will be deemed to have the benefit of paying additional current consumption or security deposit in terms of Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 only. The amended Regulation will have no implication insofar as petitioners are concerned. 37. Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board vehemently contended that the Board is entitled to collect the security deposit at four times as the land belongs to M/s.SIPCOT and the 99 years lease does entitle the petitioners to claim the land as owner of premises. The developed plot has not been transferred in its entirety, as M/s.SIPCOT continues to retain its control over the land. Therefore, the no objection certificate should be given by the SIPCOT, if not, the amended Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) will apply. 38. It is also contended by the respondents counsel that without challenging the Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a), the petitioners cannot seek the benefit of exemption from payment of additional security deposit as per the amended regulation. 39. Having considered the rival submission, the point in issue is the interpretation of the term “owner of premises”. The term “consumer's premises” as defined in Regulation 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 and the word “premises” as defined under Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 includes “any land, building or structure”. The land in this case has been transferred by M/s.SIPCOT to the benefit of HT industries on a 99 years lease and the entire consideration has been paid and the possession has been handed over to the petitioners industries with a clause that the lease can be renewed for a further period of 99 years. It only thereafter, the industry is set up at a great cost by way of investment. 40. The objection of the respondents is that the land does not vest absolutely with the HT industries and after the lease period the land will have to go back to the SIPCOT, and hence M/s.SIPCOT is the owner. In this case, for the purpose of Regulation 5(5) (vii), we are concerned with the issue whether additional current consumption deposit is payable by the HT industries only on the ground that they are not the absolute owners of the land as contended by the respondents. 41. In this case, for the purpose of Regulation 5(5) (vii), we are concerned with the issue whether additional current consumption deposit is payable by the HT industries only on the ground that they are not the absolute owners of the land as contended by the respondents. 41. The definition of the term “consumer's premises” under Regulation 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 and the word "premises" in Section 2(51) of the Electricity Act, 2003 include “land, building or structure”. In the present cases the building or structure admittedly belongs to the petitioners industries concerned. It is to the petitioners industries that the power supply is granted by the electricity Board. Therefore, the term “owner of premises” will include owner of land, owner of building or structure. It does not state that owner of land alone is the owner of premises. This definition recognizes the ownership right of the petitioners based on right over building or superstructure. Hence, the definition has to be interpreted purposefully and harmoniously. Therefore, Regulation 5(5)(ii)(a) will only apply. 6. Petitioner is in possession of the building and superstructure for which power supply is granted by the respondent Electricity Board. Therefore, petitioner has to be treated as owner of the premises and therefore, Regulation 5(5)(vii)(a) will not apply. 7. Accordingly, the impugned demand is set aside and the amount already deposited pursuant to the order of the court shall be adjusted in the regular monthly bill in terms of Regulation 5(5)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.