ORDER : R. Mahadevan, J. Both the Writ Petitions can be dealt with by a common order since the issues that arise for consideration is one and the same, namely, whether the owner of the premises is liable to meet the liability of a tenant? 2. The prayer in the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD). No. 5126 of 2015 is for a Writ of Certiroarified Mandamus to call for records from the second respondent relating to the impugned order dated 27.03.2015 in reference Number Ka.No.Vo.Ma.Po./Pa./Su.Puram/Ko./A.No.87/15 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to effect fresh electricity service connection to the property bearing door number 188, South Veli Street, Madurai. Similarly, the prayer in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD). No. 6223 of 2015 is for a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to effect fresh electricity service connections to the shops in door number 187 South Veli Street Madurai. 3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these Writ Petitions are as follows:- The Mohideen Andavar Dhargah and Pallivasal and Meena Noorden Dhargah and Pallivasal are the registered and notified Wakf under the control and supervision of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. The Wakf owns an extent of six acres of land in T.S.No.76, at Madurai. The Meena Noordeen Dhargah and Pallivasal are situated in a portion of the said land. Out of the lands available with the Pallivasal, a portion of the vacant site measuring an extent of 12,180 Sq.ft equivalent to 27 cents 408 Sq.ft had been leased out to one, Alagammai Achi through a registered lease deed dated 28.08.1959. Later, the leasehold interest had been transferred to Sockkalinga Thevar and Suppulakshmi Ammal and on their death, their son, K.S. Poomari became the tenant of the vacant site. The lessees of the vacant site had put up a superstructure over the vacant site and had been running a rice mill. The superstructure had been assessed by the Madurai City Municipal Corporation as D.No.188/South Veli Street, Madurai. The lessees had been paying the superstructure tax. They had also obtained electricity service connection for the superstructure. Similarly, a portion of the vacant site measuring an extent of 35,294 sq.ft equivalent to 81 cents 14 Sq.ft had been leased to one, Deivanai Ammal through a registered lease dated 16/05/1990 by the then Managers(Trustees) of the Dhargah and Pallivasal. The lessees had been paying the superstructure tax. They had also obtained electricity service connection for the superstructure. Similarly, a portion of the vacant site measuring an extent of 35,294 sq.ft equivalent to 81 cents 14 Sq.ft had been leased to one, Deivanai Ammal through a registered lease dated 16/05/1990 by the then Managers(Trustees) of the Dhargah and Pallivasal. The lessee of the vacant site had put up a superstructure over the vacant site and had been running a rice mill. The superstructure had been assessed by the Madurai City Municipal Corporation as door numbers 15 A and 16, Meena Noordeen Dhargah and Pallivasal Lane, South Veli Street, Madurai. The lessee had been paying superstructure tax. She had also obtained service connection for the superstructure put up by her. 3.1. The Mohideen Andavar Dhargah and Pallivasal and Meena Noordeen Dhargah and Pallivasal through its Managers (Trustees) initiated legal proceedings to evict the lessess and to recover the vacant site after removal of the superstructure put up by them. The Wakf filed a suit in O.S.No.386 of 1998, on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai against the lessee, namely, K.S. Poomari and filed another suit in O.S.No.382 of 1998 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai against the lessee, namely, Deivanai Ammal. Later, it was transferred and renumbered as W.O.P.No.2 of 2001 and W.O.P.No.4 of 2000, respectively, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court. The matter went upto the Supreme Court, where it was decreed in favour of the petitioners on 27.04.2009. However, the portion leased out to Deivanai Ammal took shelter under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act and filed C.T.O.P.No.43 of 1998, where, she could not succeed. Again, she moved before this Court by way of Civil Revision Petitions, which also came to be dismissed on 25.06.2007. 3.2. When the lessee, namely, Deivanai Ammal was in possession of the superstructure put up by her, it seems that there was an allegation of theft of electric energy in the electricity service connection S.C.No.SF 351 standing in her name. At the time of vacating the premises, the lessee had removed the superstructure and had vacated the vacant site. In that vacant site, the petitioners want to put up a school and a few shops over there, where they sought electricity connection from the respondents. At the time of vacating the premises, the lessee had removed the superstructure and had vacated the vacant site. In that vacant site, the petitioners want to put up a school and a few shops over there, where they sought electricity connection from the respondents. The said request was negatived by the respondents on the ground that unless and until the petitioners clear the dues of the said Deivanai Ammal, the request for effecting fresh connection would not be considered. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the above Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 4. Mr. J. Barathan, learned Counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the supply of electricity connection is sought for by the petitioners in respect of the Door Number 188, South Veli Street, Madurai, where, there is no due payable either by the petitioners or by the previous owner. It is not the case of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board that in the said door number any theft of energy committed. However, the respondents refuse to effect service connection to the petitioners on the only ground that since door numbers 15A and 16, Meena Noorden Dhargah and Pallivasal Lane, South Veli Street, Madurai, having due for the alleged theft committed by the Deivanani Ammal, they will not be in a position to effect service connection to Door Number 188, South Veli Street, Madurai. He would further contend that when there is no charge on the properties where the electricity supply is sought for by the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be foisted with the electricity dues of any previous occupant, merely they happen to be the owner of the premises, that too, in the case on hand, the tenant had been vacated through the Court of law. 4.1. He would further lay emphasis that the word 'premises' means where the service connection is effected, more so, on whose name the service connection stood. In a given case, the petitioners have got six acres of land, in which, various shops and establishments are put up. If anybody commits, theft of energy, will the petitioners be liable to pay the fine amount?. In a given case, the petitioners have got six acres of land, in which, various shops and establishments are put up. If anybody commits, theft of energy, will the petitioners be liable to pay the fine amount?. Suppose, on lease or on rental basis, a firm situates in the land in question and flees away without paying the taxes due to the Commercial Department and any other amount due and payable to the Government, can the owner be made liable for committing fraud on them. He would further submit that for the default committed by Deivanai Ammal (for short 'the tenant') the landlord cannot be penalised, that too, when the electricity service connection stands in the name of the tenant. He would further submit that after great ordeal and institution of Civil proceedings against the tenant, the landlord was able to succeed to get the property back. It took nearly ten years to get evicted the tenant. When that being the position and the petitioners are no way connected with the theft of energy allegedly caused by Deivanai Ammal in a vacant land leased out to her, more particularly, there is no statutory provision in the Electricity Act enabling the respondents to demand the electricity charges, the refusal to effect service connection is untenable in law. The respondents ought to have initiated civil and criminal proceedings against the tenant, namely, the said Deivanai Ammal. 4.2. Having effected electricity connection in the name of Deivanai Ammal, it is unfair on the part of the respondents to demand the dues from the petitioner, just because, he is the owner of the property. The said Deivanai Ammal had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD). No.16460 of 2003 against the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, where, she has lost her claim. Once the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, was put on notice, it should be more vigil than the petitioners. Further, the petitioners does not aware of the proceedings which transpired between the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the said Deivanai Ammal. It is pertinent to point out that the electric connection given to the tenant was disconnected two years before. No action has been taken against the said tenant nor his legal heirs. Having made the tenant to pay the part amount towards her liability, there is no ground on which to demand the remaining amount from the owner. It is pertinent to point out that the electric connection given to the tenant was disconnected two years before. No action has been taken against the said tenant nor his legal heirs. Having made the tenant to pay the part amount towards her liability, there is no ground on which to demand the remaining amount from the owner. Further, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, failed to take note of the fact that the petitioners are not liable to bear and pay the dues of the said Deivanai Ammal as they were not the consumer during the period for which the dues were claimed. The sum and substance of the argument of the petitioners is that the owner cannot be fastened with liability of a previous occupier. 4.3. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following judgments:- (I) Shahjahan v. The Superintending Engineer and another, 2012 Writ L.R. 1040, (II) K.T.V. Health Foods (P) v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2014 (2) CWC 547. (III) Leitner Shri ram Manufacturing v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2007 (4) CTC 380 . 5. Per contra, Mrs. S. Srimathy, learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board would vehemently oppose that if the argument of the petitioners is accepted, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board may not be able to provide electricity connection to any of the consumers on the basis of the lease deed. Further, in each and every matter, the respondents cannot microscopic the activities of the consumer. Either the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, has to take responsibility to provide electricity connection to a consumer. Further, through her counter affidavit, she would submit that the WAKF had executed a registered tenancy agreement with one Alagammai Achi and another agreement with Deivanai Ammal dated 28.08.1959 and 16.05.1990 respectively. Based on which, the electricity connection was effected and the service connections also stood in the name of tenants. The said Deivanai Ammal had committed theft of energy on 05.03.2001 by way of damaging the meter by which reading of the current consumption could not be ascertained. Therefore, the consumption charges were levied to the tune of Rs.5,21,093/-. The said Deivanai Ammal had preferred an appeal before the first respondent and has not filed any documentary proof and therefore, the first respondent had passed an order on 07.04.2003 confirming the theft of energy. Therefore, the consumption charges were levied to the tune of Rs.5,21,093/-. The said Deivanai Ammal had preferred an appeal before the first respondent and has not filed any documentary proof and therefore, the first respondent had passed an order on 07.04.2003 confirming the theft of energy. The tenant, namely, Deivanai Ammal had already paid Rs.2,08,437/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,12,656/- is pending. Aggrieved over the same, the said Deivanai Ammal had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD). No.16460 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Bench, Chennai and the same was dismissed for nonappearance on 07.01.2011. 5.1. Further, she would submit that if the rules are silent, the Board can stipulate such terms and conditions as it deems fit and proper to regulate the transaction and dealings. Time and again, the Supreme Court has held that so long as such rules and regulations or the terms and conditions are not arbitrary and unreasonable, Courts shall not interfere with it. As per the earlier Clause 6.10 of the terms and conditions, it empowers the Board to collect the dues outstanding. The said Clause was repealed, however, she would contend that proviso to Regulation 23 of Distribution code states that the licensee shall refuse to supply electricity to an intending consumer, if there is any default in payment of amount to the Board. Under Regulation 17(9) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004, if there is any amount, the owner of the premises is liable to pay, since the arrears of amount in any service connection is "Premises Basis" and whoever is owner of the premises is liable to pay the amount, which is why, the respondents demand "No Objection Certificate" from the owner concerned. 5.2. Further, whenever a service connection is granted it is incumbent on the owner to intimate the respondents if there is any sale, lease, mortgage or vacating the premises etc., or wherever the interest of the respondent is affected. In the case on hand, the petitioners have failed to intimate to the respondents while evicting the tenant. Had the petitioner informed about this fact, the respondents would have objected the tenant from removing the superstructure and vacate the premises, until the amount is realised. Since any arrears amount in electricity service connection is "Premises Basis" the petitioner is liable to pay arrears. Had the petitioner informed about this fact, the respondents would have objected the tenant from removing the superstructure and vacate the premises, until the amount is realised. Since any arrears amount in electricity service connection is "Premises Basis" the petitioner is liable to pay arrears. Under Regulation 17(9) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, the respondents are empowered to collect the arrears or insist the arrears whenever new service connection is sought. In toto, since the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, cannot monitor each and every activities of a consumer, the onus lies on the owner. The Clause 6.10 of the terms and conditions held that even after the Act came into force by repealing the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, the action of the Board under Clause 6.10 of the terms and conditions is saved by Section 185(2) (a) of the Act. Further, in the absence of such a stipulation, an unscrupulous consumer may commit defaults with impunity and when the electricity supply is disconnected for non-payment, may sell away the property and move on to another property, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible for the distributor to recover the dues. The learned standing counsel for EB has by relying on the clause 6.10 of the terms and conditions for supply of energy framed under the EB repealed Act and Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code and by following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court has seriously opposed the relief sought for herein on the ground that the terms and conditions of supply and Regulation 17(9)(a) of Supply Code empowers the Board to collect the outstanding. 5.3. The following judgments are relied on by the respondents to substantiate her claim:- (i) (1995) 2 SCC 648 (Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board); (ii) (1998) 4 SCC 470 , Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd v. A.P. State Electricity Board and others. (iii) (2006) 13 SCC 101, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Viran Nigam Ltd v. Par amount Polymers (P) Ltd. (iv) (2009) 1 SCC 210 , Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd and others v. DVS Steels and Alloys Private Limited and others. (v) (2010) 9 SCC 145 , Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauri and others. (vi) Unreported decision of this Court in W.A. No. 1898 of 2011 batch dated 17.08.2011. (v) (2010) 9 SCC 145 , Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauri and others. (vi) Unreported decision of this Court in W.A. No. 1898 of 2011 batch dated 17.08.2011. (vii) 2012 (2) CWC 721, Shahj ahan v. SETNEB (viii) 2013 (4) CTC 100 , K. Suguna v. Tangedco (ix) Un-reported decision of this Court in W.P. No. 7587 of 2011, dated 29.04.2014. (x) Un-reported decision of this Court in W.P.(MD). No.16929 of 2013, dated 11.08.2014 (xi) (2005) 7 SCC 393 , Amit Products (India) Ltd v. Chief Engineer (O&M) Circle and another. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records. 6. The legal issue involved in this Writ Petition is related to the 'premises', whether it includes the whole area of a owner or a portion of the property in which the occupier occupies the premises? and when there is a default for payment of electricity due leased out to a tenant, could it be fastened on the owner? 7. Before venturing into the aspect of 'premises' let us analyse a few relevant judgments quoted by the petitioners as well as the respondents:- In the cases quoted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court had an occasion to consider whether the subsequent purchaser is bound to pay past arrears? Tracing the history from the Supreme Court, this Court held that the subsequent purchaser cannot be mulcted with past arrears. 7.1. In the case of (Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board); (1995) 2 SCC 648 , a question was whether the auction-purchaser was liable to meet the liability of old consumer of electricity to the premises which was purchased by them in the auction sale from the State Financial Corporation under Section 29(1) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951?. The Supreme Court has held that the auction-purchaser cannot be called upon to clear the past arrears as a condition precedent to supply since there is no charge over the property. But, in the very same judgment in the case of Waxpol Industries and another, the Supreme Court had dismissed the claim of Waxpol Industries on account of the fact that the directors of both the companies are one and the same and therefore, they are liable to pay the electricity dues due to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 7.2. But, in the very same judgment in the case of Waxpol Industries and another, the Supreme Court had dismissed the claim of Waxpol Industries on account of the fact that the directors of both the companies are one and the same and therefore, they are liable to pay the electricity dues due to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 7.2. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauri and others, (2010) 9 SCC 145 , the question was whether Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, is statutory or not? It is held that it is statutory. In the said judgment also, the judgments of Isha Marble's case and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited's cases were also considered. 7.3. In the case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others v. DVS Steels and Alloys Private Limited and others, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 210 , the question was whether the supplier can recover the electricity dues from the purchaser of a sub-divided plot? It is held that when the purchaser of a premises approaches the distributor seeking a fresh electricity connection to is premises for supply of electricity, the distributor can stipulate the terms subject to which it would supply electricity. It can stipulate as one of the conditions for supply, that the arrears due in regard to the supply of electricity made to the premises when it was in the occupation of the previous owner/occupant, should be cleared before the electricity supply is restored to the premises or a fresh connection is provided to the premises. 7.4. Pausing for a moment, here again, the question in Paschimanchal's case was whether the petitioners seek the electricity connection for the same premises or a different premises is the question to be taken into consideration. If we apply Paschimanchal's case cited supra into the facts of the petitioners' case, they do not seek electricity connection, where the electricity supply was disconnected, but, they seek for a different premises, where there is no due at all. 7.5. No doubt, subsequently, in an unreported judgment made in W.A. (MD). Nos. 1898 to 2189 of 2001, a Division Bench of this Court fixed the liability on the subsequent purchaser of the property in question and rescued the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 7.5. No doubt, subsequently, in an unreported judgment made in W.A. (MD). Nos. 1898 to 2189 of 2001, a Division Bench of this Court fixed the liability on the subsequent purchaser of the property in question and rescued the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. However, in the case on hand, the petitioners neither a purchaser of a property or sold the property in question to anyone. The petitioners simply leased out the property to a tenant, who was evicted through the Court of law. 7.6. In 2012 (2) CWC 721, Shahjahan v. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, again the question was whether the subsequent auction purchaser can be asked to pay the due of a previous owners. In the said judgment, once again, the Court reiterate the fact that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board should provide electricity service connection to the petitioners therein without insisting the arrears unpaid by a previous owner/occupant. This judgment is also relied by the petitioners. 7.7. In 2013 (4) CTC 100 , K. Suguna v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the learned Single Judge, applying the judgment of Isha Marble's case came to the conclusion that the subsequent purchaser who has purchased the property free from encumbrance is not a debtor and he is not liable to pay the amount. 8. All along the issue before the High Courts as well as Supreme Court was in the following manner :- (i) When the real owner of the premises in question failed to pay the electricity dues, due to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, whether the subsequent purchaser could be fastened the liability or not? (ii) Whether the auction-purchaser could be made liable to pay? (iii) When a sister concern or the same Board of Directors purchase the property in question, where, they already failed to pay the amount to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, whether, they can be asked to pay the electricity charges? (iv) When a property is under charge or not, and when it could be divided into plots, whether the subsequent purchaser of the plots has to pay the due to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. (v) When there is a pre-condition 'as-is-where-is basis', to whom the liability lies? (iv) When a property is under charge or not, and when it could be divided into plots, whether the subsequent purchaser of the plots has to pay the due to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. (v) When there is a pre-condition 'as-is-where-is basis', to whom the liability lies? No where, was there an occasion to arise, when the tenant gets electricity connection in his name and flee away without paying the electricity due, to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, to whom the liability has to be fixed?. 9. This Court has gone into the various judgments relied by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, as the fact and circumstances of the case in these Writ Petitions are some what different. This Court listed out the questions as narrated above in paragraph No.8, so as to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the petitioners can be fitted in any one of the categories. By applying various Cases of the Supreme Court as well as High Courts, the petitioners could not be fitted in any one of the categories. As far as this Court is concerned, in all those cases, the Supreme Court has held that the auction purchaser of the premises would not be liable to meet the liability of the previous owner in order to secure the reconnection to the premises for which the supply of electricity has been disconnected for non clearance of the consumption charges by the previous owner. Such being the case, whether the Board is empowered to impose condition of clearance of outstanding arrears due from the previous owner in respect of the premises in question for effecting reconnection or new connection applied for by an applicant. 10. As already narrated above, in Isha Marble Case's the Supreme Court has held that any demands of the dues of the previous occupants from an auction purchaser seeking electricity energy by way of fresh connection cannot be imposed as a condition precedent in the absence of any statutory rule authorising such demand. The Apex Court having found existing law inadequate to enforce the liability of the erstwhile consumer on the subsequent purchaser of the property is pleased to hold the issue in favour of auction purchaser. Whereas the decision of the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Isha Marble' s case is distinguished in Haryana State EB case. The Apex Court having found existing law inadequate to enforce the liability of the erstwhile consumer on the subsequent purchaser of the property is pleased to hold the issue in favour of auction purchaser. Whereas the decision of the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Isha Marble' s case is distinguished in Haryana State EB case. Whereas in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically laid down that the EB is entitled to regulate its tariff in such a way that a reasonable property is left with it so as to enable it to undertake the activities necessary. If in that process in respect of recovery of dues in respect of a premises to which supply has been made a condition is inserted for its recovery from a transferee of the undertaking, it cannot ex facie be said to be unauthorised or unreasonable. It can be held so, on the strength of clause 21 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, which is similar to clause 6.10 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. But, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited cannot be applied in this case in view of the fact that in the said case in the advertisement itself, there is a clause, namely, "as-is-where-is basis". The company therein knowing fully well participated in the bid and bid was accordingly accepted by them. Therefore, the liability was fixed on the Company directing to pay them the arrears. Here, such occasion does not arise. 11. Coming to the Clause 6.10 of the terms and conditions framed under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, which reads as follows; "6.10. The Board will refuse to supply electricity to an intending consumer who has defaulted in payment of dues to the Board in respect of any other service connection held in his name. 11. Coming to the Clause 6.10 of the terms and conditions framed under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, which reads as follows; "6.10. The Board will refuse to supply electricity to an intending consumer who has defaulted in payment of dues to the Board in respect of any other service connection held in his name. In case of services which have been disconnected/dismantled for non payment of arrears and if the services are to be availed by other parties in the same premises either by purchase or transfer or in auction or on lease basis then in such cases the services will be effected only on clearance of the dues outstanding against such disconnected/dismantled service by the intending consumers." Notwithstanding Clause 6.10, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, stood repealed by enactment of Supply Code. The repeal and saving Section 185 (1) and (2)(a) of the new Act saves the Rules framed under Section 49 of the old Act. The repeal and saving Section 185(1) & (2)(a) reads as follows; "Section 185.Repeal and Saving:- (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910) the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948) and the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 (14 of 1998) are hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal.- (a) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken including any rule, notification, inspection, order or notice made or issued or any appointment, confirmation or declaration made or any licence, permission, authorisation or exemption granted or any document or instrument executed or any direction given under the repealed laws shall, insofar as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act." 12. Though regulation 17(4) creates a charge over the property to recover the arrears and other charges even beyond the date of sale or lease out or otherwise disposal of the properties or business, if the consumer failed to give advance intimation of his intention to sell or lease out or otherwise dispose of the property. In the present case, there is no such sale or lease out or otherwise disposal of the properties or business. In the present case, there is no such sale or lease out or otherwise disposal of the properties or business. As per clause 6.10 or Regulation 17(4), it is clear that the subsequent purchaser has no escape from the liability to pay the arrears of the previous owner and the board is vested with power to deny the EB connection to the purchaser of the property without clearance of the arrears. The petitioners herein is not the subsequent purchaser of the property and therefore, the board is not empowered to demand the arrears for effecting new connection. 13. This Court is conscious of the fact that the dishonest consumers cannot be allowed to play truant with the public property. The decisions relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, would not assist for the present case, because, the primary question in these Writ Petitions is related to the 'premises'? If we go by the Electricity Act, 2003. In the definition clause of 51, "premises" includes any land, building or structure. In the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004, in Chapter 1, 2(l) defines, consumer's premises, means the area served by a service connection. In the present case the area served by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was in respect of Door Nos.188, South Veli Street, Madurai and Door Nos.15A and 16, Meena Noordeen Dhargah and Pallivasal Lane, South Veli Street, Madurai. Admittedly, there was theft of energy took place in Door Nos.15A and 16, Meena Noordeen Dhargah and Pallivasal Lane, South Veli Street, Madurai, where the tenant had run the rice mill business. Now, the petitioner does not seek the electricity connection to the Door Nos.188, South Veli Street, Madurai. Similarly, Clause 6.10 of the Electricity Supply Act, emphasis that the electricity connection can be refused to the same premises where there is a due. Therefore, one thing is clear that the petitioners does not fall within the clause of Chapter 1, 2(l) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004. Similarly, the petitioners will not come within the ambit of same premises too. 14. Whether the petitioners seek electricity connection for the very same premises, where the tenant defaulted amount to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board? Not at all. Such being the case, whether the owner can be made liable for the amount due and payable by the tenant. Similarly, the petitioners will not come within the ambit of same premises too. 14. Whether the petitioners seek electricity connection for the very same premises, where the tenant defaulted amount to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board? Not at all. Such being the case, whether the owner can be made liable for the amount due and payable by the tenant. More so, the petitioners have not sought for electricity connection, where the electricity supply was disconnected. 15. In the case on hand, the failure of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to recover the dues for the past 12 years from the tenant is a point to be put against them. The dues towards the consumption of electricity could be recovered only if the owner was a consumer. He cannot be held to be a consumer since, factually, the appellant has not provided electricity connection to the petitioners. After all, the petitioners leased out a vacant site to the tenant. 16. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court comes to the conclusion that the owner cannot be fastened with liability and it should not be taken as a precedent, in case owners have an agreement with the tenant/lessor or with consumer, as the case may be, in clearing the arrears to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Further, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, could not substantiate that there is a privity of contract between the owner and the tenant or between the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board or the tenant. Neither the petitioners nor the respondent have produced the tenancy agreement dated 16.05.1990 and under what basis, the electricity service connection was effected to a previous tenant. In the absence of any specific clause in the tenancy agreement, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board cannot insist upon the petitioners to pay the arrear amount of a tenant. 17. It is not known that when the petitioners being the owner of the premises in question, how the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had effected electricity connection in the name of the tenant. In a normal course of procedure, generally, the electricity, the water service connection and property tax stands in the name of the owner, who in turn, will pay the amounts to the respective departments, after collecting it from a tenant. In a normal course of procedure, generally, the electricity, the water service connection and property tax stands in the name of the owner, who in turn, will pay the amounts to the respective departments, after collecting it from a tenant. Aghast of the reasons stated above, it is not the case of the respondents that as per the tenancy agreement, if the tenant fails to pay the electricity dues to the respondents, the onus will be shifted on the owner of the property in question. According to the petitioners, they leased out a vacant land of the premises in which, the superstructure was put by the tenant, where tax was also assessed by the Madurai City Municipal Corporation. Further, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that they have given a letter to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board agreeing to pay arrears. Upon verification, it comes to light that the petitioners have agreed to pay the electricity due and payable in respect of Door No. 188, South Veli Street, Madurai and not for D.No.15A and 16, Meena Noordeen Dhargah and Pallivasal Lane, South Veli Street, Madurai. 18. Though in the counter affidavit, in paragraph 9, it is averred that, whenever the property in question is being vacated, it is incumbent upon the owner to intimate the same to the respondents, no rule or provision is placed before this Court to substantiate the said submission. On the other hand, it is to be noted herein that aggrieved over the penalty amount imposed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the tenant (Deivanai Ammal) had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD). No. 16460 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Seat of this Court, Chennai, against the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the same was dismissed for non-appearance only in the year 07.01.2011. As per paragraph No.7 of the affidavit, it seems that the said tenant (Deivanai Ammal) died during the initiation of Civil proceedings against the owner of the property in the year 2006. Presumably, there was inaction on the part of the respondents between 2003 to 2011 or at least between 2003 to 2006. Assuming for a moment, either the owner or the tenant, as the case may be, fails to pay the electricity due, will the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board be kept quiet for years together, till the owner or tenant seeks electricity connection to the very same premises. Assuming for a moment, either the owner or the tenant, as the case may be, fails to pay the electricity due, will the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board be kept quiet for years together, till the owner or tenant seeks electricity connection to the very same premises. Especially, there was no stay in the Writ Petition filed by the tenant and the respondents could have very much taken action against the said Deivanai Ammal or her legal heirs. Therefore, the respondents cannot plead ignorance that they were not at all aware of the happenings. 19. In view of the foregoing reasons stated above, the legal question that the 'premises' means the area where the electricity service connection is provided to a consumer and not the whole area, as projected by the respondents herein. 20. In the light of the vital issue involved in these Writ Petitions, a copy of this order shall be marked to the Chairman, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board so as to take appropriate steps in this regard. Further, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is directed to take effective steps that wherever an electricity is due for the premises in question, the Board shall immediately communicate the dues to the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, who in turn, shall immediately communicate the encumbrance of the property in question to the Sub-Registrar concerned without any delay. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as well as the Registration Department shall ensure that the encumbrance reflects in the Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Registration Department as and when the purchaser approaches the property in question. 21. As one step ahead, there shall be a further direction to the Government that wherever there is an encumbrance over the properties pertaining dues to the Government, like the Municipal Tax, Electricity, Loan availed from the Bank and so on and so forth, a charge shall be created immediately on such properties and the Government must ensure that the same should be reflected in the encumbrance certificate so as to avoid unnecessary litigations at the instance of an innocent purchaser or from miscreants. In the present context, such direction becomes very much necessary so that not only the interests of the purchasers could be saved but also even the Government Departments and its revenue. 22. In the present context, such direction becomes very much necessary so that not only the interests of the purchasers could be saved but also even the Government Departments and its revenue. 22. Though this Court is in respectful agreement with the Supreme Court that if the rules are silent, the Board can stipulate the terms and conditions to regulate its transactions and dealings, such principles cannot be applied in this case in a mechanical manner, as the owner of the property itself could vacate the premises in question through the Civil forum. If a tenant wants to harm the owner after losing his claim before the Civil forum and at the end of eviction proceedings, he does harm to the owner of the property by damaging the meter reading, could again the owner be liable for the default committed by the tenant?. That is the reason why, the Supreme Court cautiously observed in one of its judgments, by relying upon a circular dated 19.01.1972 of the Board that in the case of a genuine purchase, if the old consumer had committed default, it would be neither be legal nor proper to insist on the realisation of the arrears due for giving re-connection. Especially, in a given case, the petitioners evicted the tenant through the process of law, after litigating his case for a period of ten years. Even going by Clause 6.10 of the terms and conditions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the language employed in the said clause is that it authorizes them to refuse to supply electricity connection to the same premises only and not a new premises. Here, the petitioners seek electricity connection to the new premises. When an electricity connection stands in the name of a tenant and having collected a part amount as fine from the tenant, there is no justification to recover the remaining charges from the owner. 23. In the peculiar fact and circumstances of the case and the reasoning stated supra, the order impugned in this Writ Petition stand set aside and these writ petitions stand allowed with a direction to the respondents herein to effect service connections to the petitioners, as sought for in these Writ Petition, without insisting the amount payable by the previous tenant. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.