Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 453 (MAD)

N. Ravikumar v. Chairman, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board

2014-02-24

M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Mandamus praying for issuance of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 & 2 to receive and process his application for restoration of Metro Water Supply and consequently, to supply Metro Water to his Hotel namely, "Hotel Kani Virudhunagar Briyani" located at Old No.336 New No.1025, Tiruvottiyur High Road, Old Washermenpet Chennai-21 by collecting necessary charges from him. 2. According to the Petitioner, he is running a Hotel in the rented premises for the past six years in the name and style "Hotel Kani Virudhunagar Briyani" and he had obtained the essential required licenses like the Corporation License, Fire and Rescue Service License and Police License to run the hotel by paying necessary fees. He is periodically paying the monthly rent till date to the rented premises. He enjoyed the Metro Water and Electricity connection without any disturbances till 08.11.2011. 3. The Third Respondent/original owner without disclosing to the Petitioner about the Sale of the building dated 15.09.2011 to the Fourth Respondent [K.V.Sundarababu] came to the premises and disconnected the basic amenities like water and electricity on 09.11.2011 without assigning any reason and intimation to him. When he approached and made a request to restore the amenities, he had not listen to his request and also not taken any steps to restore the amenities. In the circumstances, the Petitioner filed RCOP No.1915 & 1916 of 2011 for restoration of Water Connection and Electricity Supply. He also filed M.P.No.547 of 2011 in RCOP No.1915 of 2011 and M.P.No.545 of 2011 in RCOP No.1916 of 2011 seeking interim restoration of Water and Electricity connections. The Learned Rent Controller through interim orders dated 19.11.2011 in the aforesaid Miscellaneous Petitions, directed the landlord to restore the Water Supply and Electricity Connection till the disposal of main RCOPs. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that after the interim orders passed by the Learned Rent Controller dated 19.11.2011 as stated supra, the landlord namely, the Third Respondent was not ready to provide Water and Electricity Supply. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that after the interim orders passed by the Learned Rent Controller dated 19.11.2011 as stated supra, the landlord namely, the Third Respondent was not ready to provide Water and Electricity Supply. As such, the Petitioner approached once again the Learned Rent Controller in M.P.No.547 of 2011 in RCOP No.1915 of 2011 and M.P.No.545 of 2011 in RCOP No.1916 of 2011 praying to restore the amenities of Water Supply and Electricity Connection even at his own cost and the said Miscellaneous Petitions were allowed by the Learned Rent Controller on 12.12.2011. 5. The plea of the Petitioner is that he was permitted to obtain Water and Electricity Connections at his costs and initially approached the Electricity Department along with the order of the Learned Rent Controller dated 12.12.2011. The Electricity Department received his application and processed it and thereafter, restored Electricity Connection. He also approached the Second Respondent to restore as per the order of the Learned Rent Controller dated 12.12.2011 and purchased the application on 28.12.2011 and on 08.02.2012 for restoration of interim Water Supply. The Second Respondent in letter dated 09.03.2012, directed him to submit the application along with the relevant document to the First Respondent. When he went to the office of the First Respondent along with the filled up application, the First Respondent refused to receive his application. Since the First Respondent refused to receive his application, the Petitioner is purchasing water to run the hotel by spending the amount of Rs.400/- per day. 6. At this stage, this Court on going through the plain ingredients of Section 17(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 opines that the term 'amenity' in terms of explanation to Section 17 unerringly point out that it includes "supply of water, electricity, passages, staircases, light, lavatories, lifts and conservancy or sanitary services" etc. The amenities stated are actual amenities of that kind and they form an indispensable need, in the considered opinion of this Court. 7. The amenities stated are actual amenities of that kind and they form an indispensable need, in the considered opinion of this Court. 7. It transpires that on a plain reading of Section 17(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 Electricity is an amenity, which even though, cut off by the landlord for non-payment of Electricity consumption charges and the landlord has sold the property, still the purchaser is bound to restore the supply, provided that the tenant pays the Electricity consumption charges regularly as per the decision of Krishnaraj Vs. M.K.Karunakaran [101 LW 86 and at Special page 88]. 8. Further, it is to be noted that Section 17 of the Act can be pressed into service only when the landlord withholds the amenities without a justifiable and real cause. It cannot be gainsaid to invoke the ingredients of Section 17 of the Act the Petitioner must establish that he is a tenant. In fact, the rights of parties can be decided only according to Section 2(8) of the Act. No wonder, unless there is a relationship of 'Landlord and Tenant', Section 17 of the Act would not apply in the considered opinion of this Court. 9. As far as the present case is concerned, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner informs this Court that Electricity Department had received the application of the Petitioner, after processing the same, restored Electricity Connection in respect of Petitioner's Hotel namely, "Hotel Kani Virudhunagar Briyani" located at Old No.336 New No.1025, Tiruvottiyur High Road, Old Washermenpet Chennai-21. However, the grievance of the Petitioner is that Respondents 1 and 2 refuses to receive his application for restoration of Metro Water Supply. In this regard, this Court very pertinently points out that the Learned XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Controller) in M.P.No.591 of 2011 in M.P.No.547 of 2011 in RCOP No.1915 of 2011 has passed orders on 12.12.2011 permitting the Petitioner to restore the basic amenity of Water Connection to the premises at his own cost, then, the Respondents 1 and 2 cannot refuse to receive and process the application for restoration of Metro Water Supply to his Hotel namely "Hotel Kani Virudhunagar Briyani" located at Old No.336 New No.1025, Tiruvottiyur High Road, Old Washermenpet Chennai-21, of course by collecting necessary charges. Since the Respondents 1 and 2 had refused to receive and process the Petitioner's application for restoration of Metro Water Supply for his Hotel at "Hotel Kani Virudhunagar Briyani" located at Old No.336 New No.1025, Tiruvottiyur High Road, Old Washermenpet Chennai-21, this Court on the basis of Equity, Fair Play, Good Conscience and even as a matter of Prudence directs the Petitioner to submit a fresh application for restoration of Metro Water Supply to the Hotel within a period of one week and on receipt of such application, the Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to receive and process the application of the Petitioner for restoration of Water Supply at "Hotel Kani Virudhunagar Briyani" located at Old No.336 New No.1025, Tiruvottiyur High Road, Old Washermenpet Chennai-21 by collecting necessary charges within a period of three weeks thereafter. At the time of receiving and processing the application of the Petitioner for restoration of Metro Water Supply to the aforesaid Hotel at the place mentioned supra, the Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to follow the order of Learned XIII Judge (Rent Controller), Court of Small Causes, Chennai passed in M.P.No.591 of 2011 in M.P.No.547 of 2011 in RCOP No.1915 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011 in restoring Water Connection at the cost of the Petitioner scrupulously and that too in true letter and spirit without any deviation whatsoever. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.