Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.M.L.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the second respondent. 2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, by calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings Lr.No.AE/O & M/Rangarajapuram/General/D.No.71/11, dated 26.6.2011, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to provide electricity connection to the petitioners in Shop Nos.E & F, at Old No.25, New No.43, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24. 3. According to the petitioners, they are the tenants and having shops in the above mentioned address under the second respondent-landlord with an agreed monthly rent of Rs.600/-, which excludes electricity charges. The second respondent-landlord filed a petition for fixation of fair rent and the same has been ordered. The petitioners have filed appeals in R.C.A.Nos.616 and 191 of 2004, which were pending on the file of VII Small Causes Court, Chennai and on 7.3.2012, the fair rent appeal had been disposed of and the petitioners had been taking steps to file C.R.P. against the said order. 4. While so, when the petitioners are in occupation of the premises in question, at the instance of the second respondent, the first respondent disconnected the electricity supply to the petitioners' shops on 11.11.2010 and the main control box of the electricity connection is with the second respondent. The second respondent had cut the connection to the shops of both the petitioners. Because of the disconnection of the electricity connection, the petitioners had been put to irreparable loss and hardship. Though the petitioners requested the second respondent to restore the electricity connection, the same was not considered and therefore, without any option, the petitioners lodged a Police complaint before R2 Kodambakkam Police Station on 12.12.2010. As there was no fruitful result from the Police complaint, the petitioners filed rent control petitions in R.C.O.P.Nos.37 and 38 of 2011 for restoration of the amenities, namely the electricity connection to their shops. In the said case, the petitioners filed interlocutory applications for interim restoration of the amenity under Section 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The learned Rent Controller, on contest, allowed the petition in M.P.Nos.69 and 110 of 2011 on 17.2.2011. The second respondent has not restored the electricity connection. 5. In the said case, the petitioners filed interlocutory applications for interim restoration of the amenity under Section 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The learned Rent Controller, on contest, allowed the petition in M.P.Nos.69 and 110 of 2011 on 17.2.2011. The second respondent has not restored the electricity connection. 5. Having found that there is no other remedy available to the petitioners, the petitioners moved the first respondent by applying separate electricity service connections after obtaining orders from the Rent Control Court, once again, the petitioners requested for a service connection in their name on 11.3.2011 with a requisition letter on the same day. Pursuant to the same, the first respondent has passed the impugned order rejected the claim of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have no other efficacious and effective remedy except to revoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The challenge made to the above impugned order is based on the provisions contained under Regulation 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, which provides that even if there is no consent from the landlord, if the occupier is in occupation of the premises, he can apply and the first respondent is under obligation to consider the separate electricity connection on getting necessary affidavit of undertaking, security bond and indemnity bond from them and without doing so, the first respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioners. 7. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit inter-alia stating that the writ petitioners are tenants in the above shops and the second respondent-landlord is the owner of the shops and they are running the business in the name and style of M/s.Bobby Emporium. There was demand of increased rent from the tenants by the second respondent. The second respondent disconnected the electricity supply by way of removing fuse in the abovesaid shops after the meter at consumers side, upto the meter electricity supply is available for M/s.Bobby Emporium. There was demand of increased rent from the tenants by the second respondent. The second respondent disconnected the electricity supply by way of removing fuse in the abovesaid shops after the meter at consumers side, upto the meter electricity supply is available for M/s.Bobby Emporium. It is also stated that the writ petitioners filed R.C.O.P. against the second respondent before the Rent Controller in the Court of Small Causes at Chennai under Section 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and in the said R.C.O.P., the interim applications in M.P.Nos.37 and 69 of 2011 were filed and by order dated 17.2.2011, the Court directed the second respondent to restore the electricity connections, and if he fails, the writ petitioners could restore the same at their own costs and recover the same from the second respondent. As such, the petitioners made an application on 11.3.2011 before the first respondent, which was received by them on 1.6.2011, requesting two new electricity service connections to their two shops, enclosing the Rent Control Court order. 8. It is the further case of the first respondent in the counter affidavit that even though new electricity service connection had not been requested with proper application, based on the letter sent by the writ petitioners, the site was inspected by their officials and it was found that there were nine meters for nine shops in the said address at Old No.25, New No.43, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024. As per the TANGEDCO's Rules in force, one service connection should be given to a building consisting of one physically segregated partition and all the above cited nine service meters are live and electricity bill is being paid regularly. 9. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that as far as TANGEDCO is concerned, each shop at the said address should have one meter and the two shops of Bobby Emporium namely, F & E in question, has each separate service connection under Account Nos.226-15-63 and 226-15-64 respectively in the name of A.V.S.Sarma under Tariff V. Separate meter in addition to the existing one meter is not possible and the above said matter was informed to the petitioners, vide the impugned order. Hence, they prayed for dismissing the Writ Petition. 10. Hence, they prayed for dismissing the Writ Petition. 10. Mr.M.L.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners consistently pleaded that the first respondent is under the obligation to restore the electricity service connection both under Regulation 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code as well as, as per the direction issued by the Rent Controller in the order dated 17.2.2011, and therefore, the rejection of the claim of the petitioners by the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained. 11. Per contra, Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned counsel for the first respondent contended that there was an objection by the landlord in providing electricity service connection to the petitioners' shops and as per the TANGEDCO's Rules in force, one service connection should be given to a building consisting of one physically segregated portion and the petitioners are in two shops, namely E and F in question, and each of the shops are provided with two account numbers of electricity service connection, and therefore, giving separate meters in addition to the existing ones, is not possible, and accordingly, the decision has been arrived at and the same has been communicated in the impugned proceedings. 12. Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the second respondent/landlord contended that the petitioners are in occupation of the premises in question only as tenants and therefore, they cannot claim any separate electricity service connection and his objection has to be taken note of while considering the application for electricity service connection. 13. It is to be seen that the petitioners are the tenants under the second respondent/landlord. There was RCOP petition for fixation of fair rent in R.C.O.P.Nos.100 and 101 of 2001 as stated by the petitioners' counsel, which were allowed, against which. R.C.A.Nos.616 and 191 of 2004 were filed, which were dismissed on 7.3.2012, and it is informed during the course of arguments that as against the dismissal of the said RCAs. of the appellate authority, the petitioners have preferred Civil Revision Petitions before this Court in C.R.P.SR.Nos.40198 and 40201 of 2012, which are not even numbered till date. R.C.A.Nos.616 and 191 of 2004 were filed, which were dismissed on 7.3.2012, and it is informed during the course of arguments that as against the dismissal of the said RCAs. of the appellate authority, the petitioners have preferred Civil Revision Petitions before this Court in C.R.P.SR.Nos.40198 and 40201 of 2012, which are not even numbered till date. While so, the petitioners have preferred Rent Control Petitions in R.C.O.P.Nos.37 and 38 of 2011 for restoration of amenity and in the said R.C.O.Ps., M.P.Nos.69 and 110 of 2011 were preferred under Section 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, which were allowed by the Rent Controller on 17.2.2011 with a direction to restore the electricity service connection and inspite of the same, the second respondent has not agreed for restoration of electricity service connection and it is stated that subsequently, the said R.C.O.Ps., have been dismissed, and therefore, the interim order is not implemented by the second respondent. Having no other remedy, the petitioners made repeated requests to the second respondent to restore the electricity service connection and finding that it would be only possible to go before the first respondent by making an application, and accordingly, the petitioners have filed application for separate electricity service connection on 11.3.2011 and the first respondent has considered the said application and rejected the same by the following observation: " ..... On pursuing the Hon'ble Small Cause Court order M.P.No.110/11 in RCOP.No.38/11, the Hon'ble Court order has to restore the electricity connection the petitioner by the land owner only. It is further noticed that there is no specific order for the TNEB for New service connection. The existing service connection 226:15:64 & 226:15:63 has already been live and the EB supply is available in the premises and all the EB meters consumed power and recorded the energy utilised in the meter for the above premises. As per the TNEB records all the alone service connection are in live and there is no disconnected supply. Further to the above the land owner Thiru.AVS.Sharma has already send a objection letter by registered post stating that not to effect any new service connection in the above premises. The objection letter was received by this office on 18.5.2011. In the above circumstance, there is no provision of effecting new service connection in the above premises. ..." 14. Further to the above the land owner Thiru.AVS.Sharma has already send a objection letter by registered post stating that not to effect any new service connection in the above premises. The objection letter was received by this office on 18.5.2011. In the above circumstance, there is no provision of effecting new service connection in the above premises. ..." 14. On a perusal of the material documents and the pleadings, it is seen that the second respondent has disconnected the electricity and removed the fuse carrier and thereafter, there was no electricity service connection. It is also not disputed that there were interlocutory applications for restoration of electricity service connection, which were allowed, and thereafter, the RCOP itself was dismissed for default, which order is not placed before this Court. Therefore, the second respondent would not make any efforts to restore the electricity service connection. 15. The claim of the petitioners is under Regulation 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, which provides as follows: "Regulation 27: Requisitions for supply of energy - ... (4) An intending consumer who is not the owner of the premises he occupies shall produce a consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure III to this Code from the owner of the premises for availing the supply. If the owner is not available or he refuses to give consent letter, the intending consumer shall produce proof of his/her being in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond in Form 6 of the Annexure III to this Code indemnifying the licensee against any loss on account of disputes arising out of effecting service connection to the occupant and acceptance to pay security deposit twice the normal rate." 16. Therefore, in cases where there is no electricity service connection, and if the consumer is intending to have the electricity service connection for his premises, even without the consent from the owner, the Electricity Board is under the obligation to provide the electricity service connection with the indemnity bond/security deposit from the intending consumer with whatever the prescribed rate of tariff. 17. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of this Court reported in (S.A.Ponnappan Vs. J.A.Bathurujaman and others), wherein, this Court, while interpreting Regulation 27(4) of the said Code, held as follows: "10. 17. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of this Court reported in (S.A.Ponnappan Vs. J.A.Bathurujaman and others), wherein, this Court, while interpreting Regulation 27(4) of the said Code, held as follows: "10. The above provision makes it clear that an intending consumer, who is in lawful occupation, can apply to the Electricity Board, with the consent of the landlord, for supply of electricity. In case if the owner refused to give consent letter or he is not in station, the consumer shall produced a proof that he is in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond in Form 6 of the Annexure III to this Code indemnifying the Electricity Board against any loss on account of disputes arising out of effecting service connection." 18. In the present case, the electricity service connection to the petitioners' shops in question is already in Account Nos.226:15:64 & 226:15:63. It is the stand of the first respondent that already, the electricity connections are alive and they are not disconnected and if the electricity service connections are disconnected by the second respondent by any method, on inspection of the premises concerned, it is for the first respondent to take note of what is the discrepancy committed by the consumer and take appropriate action in this regard. At the same time, if any of the person who is in occupation of the premises and having service connection, goes before the first respondent with a request for restoration of the electricity service connection, it is for the first respondent to consider the same in accordance with law either under the relevant provisions of the Act or if there is no electricity connection, it is only then they shall invoke Regulation 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code. In this case, it is not the case of the petitioners that their service connection is already disconnected by the first respondent; on the other hand, it is disconnected at the instance of the second respondent-landlord, by removing fuse. In this case, it is not the case of the petitioners that their service connection is already disconnected by the first respondent; on the other hand, it is disconnected at the instance of the second respondent-landlord, by removing fuse. If that is so, it is for the petitioners who are intended to have separate service connections if the second respondent-landlord is not willing to provide electricity service connections to the petitioners-tenants, to go before the first respondent and the first respondent is under the obligation to invoke Regulation 27(4) of the said Code and after taking necessary indemnity bond/security deposit and also an affidavit of undertaking from the consumers/petitioners for any damages, etc., to the TNEB in future, the electricity supply service connection shall be provided by the first respondent. 19. In the light of the above stated position and considering the various factors involved in this case, subject to any rent control proceedings/appeal/CRPs., if any pending, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioners' application for electricity service connection made on 11.3.2011 and issue notice to the petitioners/tenants and the second respondent/landlord and after hearing their objections, if any, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.