JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner and his family members are residing at New No.6, Old No.16/2, S.S.V. Koil Street, Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. Since, the property in question is an ancestral property, the petitioner is entitled to a share in the said property. It has been further stated that the second respondent is the brother of the petitioner. The suit filed by the second respondent, in O.S.No.5475 of 2008, praying for permanent injunction against the petitioner, had been dismissed, on 7.11.2012. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had stated that against the judgment and decree, dated 7.11.2012, made in O.S.No.5475 of 2008, an appeal in A.S.No.17 of 2013, had been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had further stated that the petitioner is not living at New No.6, Old No.16/2, S.S.V.Koil Street, Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. In fact, the petitioner and his family members are living elsewhere. He had further stated that the property in question had been settled in his favour by his mother, Kaliammal, wife of Late Jayaseelan, by way of Registered Deed of Settlement, dated 23.1.1986. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim title, in respect of the property in question. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the second respondent, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 12.9.2011, and pass appropriate orders thereon, taking into consideration the documents, filed by the petitioner to show that he is residing at New No.6, Old No.16/2, S.S.V. Koil Street, Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. If the first respondent is satisfied that the petitioner is in lawful occupation and possession of the property in question, an order may be passed, granting temporary electricity service connection, under Regulation 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the first respondent is satisfied that the petitioner is in lawful occupation and possession of the property in question, an order may be passed, granting temporary electricity service connection, under Regulation 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that, if such temporary electricity service connection is granted in favour of the petitioner, it would not vest any additional right in favour of the petitioner in the property in question. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.