Bescom vs Sri Ashwin Joshua D Souza
2021 Latest Caselaw 3505 Kant

                              1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

                          PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                            AND

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

          WRIT APPEAL NO. 999 OF 2021(GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

1. BESCOM
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KR CIRCLE
BANGALORE - 560 001

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT S-20
SUB-DIVISION, HSR LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 102.

                                               ...APPELLANTS

(BY SMT.RAKSHITHA D J, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI ASHWIN JOSHUA D'SOUZA
S/O JOHN D'SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.34, SHATHIPURA
ELECTRONIC CITY, 2ND PHASE,
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 099
                               2


2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ROOM NO. 206, 2ND FLOOR,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001

3. SMT. NITHYA MURALIDHARAN
D/O S.MURALIDHARAN
AGED 29 YEARS
R/AT NO. L-79, 15TH CROSS,
5TH MAIN ROAD, SECTOR -6
HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 102

                                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R2;
SRI G.SUKUMARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT.PRAMILA NESARGI, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.GEETA MENON, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH

COURT ACT PRAYING TO I. CALL FOR RECORD IN RESPECT OF

WRIT PETITION NO. 6231/2021 AND II.SET ASIDE / MODIFY THE

ORDER DATED 12.07.2021 IN W.P. NO. 6231/2021 (GM-KEB)

PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT

AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL.


       THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS

DAY,    SACHIN   SHANKAR    MAGADUM     J.,   DELIVERED   THE

FOLLOWING:
                                3


                          JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by BESCOM assailing the

correctness of the order dated 12.07.2021 passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6231/2021.

2. The respondent No.1 questioning the order dated

15.03.2021 passed by the appellant No.2 preferred a writ

petition before the learned Single Judge. The grievance of the

respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge was that the

appellant No.2 at the instance of the respondent No.3 has

ordered for surrender of existing electricity installation. The

respondent No.1 who claims to be the tenant approached the

learned Single Judge questioning the order passed by the

appellant No.2, who at the instance of the respondent

No.3/Landlady, has ordered for surrender of the electricity

installation.

3. The learned Single Judge having examined the rival

contentions quashed the impugned order dated 15.03.2021

passed by the appellant No.2 and also ordered for restoration

of electricity in the schedule premises with a rider that the

restoration would be subject to outcome of the result in

pending suit bearing O.S.No.858/2020.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants

would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that

the respondent No.3 is a registered consumer in terms of

Regulation 2.05 of the Karnataka Electricity Board (Supply)

Regulations, 1998 and therefore, there is no privity of contract

between respondent No.1/petitioner and the present

appellants and as such, question of restoration of electricity

supply as ordered by the learned Single Judge warrants

interference at the hands of this Court. The learned counsel

would further lay emphasis on the fact that it is only the

registered consumer who is a responsible person for any

revenue and electrical safety and therefore, when an

application is moved by a registered consumer requesting for

permanent surrender of power supply, the respondent No.1

who is a tenant has no locus standi to seek restoration of

power supply. She would also contend before this Court that

in the event there is any default, the appellants cannot

proceed against the respondent No.1/petitioner and therefore,

seeks interference at the hands of this Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent

No.1/petitioner would, however, oppose the grounds urged in

the writ appeal and would contend before us that the

respondent No.1 who is a lawfully inducted tenant has

possessory rights and a bare suit for injunction filed by the

respondent No.1 is pending consideration in O.S.No.858/2020.

The respondent No.1 would also submit to this Court that the

respondent No.3/landlady has already filed an ejectment suit

and the same is pending for consideration before the

Competent Civil Court and therefore, would request this Court

to dismiss the appeal.

6. Per contra, Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3/landlady

lamenting the conduct of the respondent No.1 would submit to

this Court that respondent No.1 is a defaulter and there are

arrears of rent and therefore, would support the grounds

urged by the appellants.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the rival

parties. Perused the order under challenge.

8. Though the learned counsel appearing for

appellants has vehemently argued that there is no privity of

contract between the appellants and the respondent No.1 and

therefore, the respondent No.1 cannot resist the application

filed by the respondent No.3/landlady seeking surrender of

power installation, we are not inclined to accede to the said

argument. The material on record clearly indicates that

respondent No.1 has got possessory rights and unless

respondent No.3/landlady seeks possession by having

recourse to due process of law, the appellants cannot abruptly

disconnect the power connection at the instance of the

landlady. Insofar as the grievance of the respondent No.3/

landlady that respondent No.1 has not paid rent, the same has

to be agitated before the Court where the ejectment suit filed

by respondent No.3 is pending for consideration.

9. The material on record does not indicate that

respondent No.1 has committed default in paying the

electricity bills. If there is no default on the part of the

respondent No.1 who is in occupation of the premises, the

present appellants cannot disconnect the electricity supply at

the instance of the respondent No.3/landlady.

10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of

M/s.Noble Plastic Industry vs. Karnataka Power

Transmission Corporation Limited and Another1 has held

that so long there is no default on the part of tenant or a

person in occupation of premises, it is not permissible for the

2000 (6) Kar.L.J. 410

authorities to disconnect the electricity supply at the instance

of the landlord/landlady. The judgment rendered by the

Division Bench is squarely applicable to the present facts and

circumstances.

11. However, we find some force in the submission

made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

The apprehension of the appellants is that if respondent No.1

commits default in paying the electricity bills, there would be

impediment in recovering the bills in absence of contract,

appears to be reasonable. Therefore, on this short point, we

are inclined to modify the order passed by the learned Single

Judge though we are in total agreement with the conclusions

arrived by the learned Single Judge.

12. The respondent No.1 shall execute an indemnity

bond and give an undertaking that he will not commit any

default in paying the arrears. The respondent No.1 shall also

abide by any suitable conditions that would be imposed by the

appellants. However, since the respondent No.1 and

respondent No.3/landlady are at loggerhead and litigations are

pending, the appellants may not insist for 'No objection' from

the respondent No.3/landlady. It is needless to say that

restoration of power supply would be subject to the result of

the suit pending between the respondent No.1 and the

respondent No.3/landlady. If a fresh application along with

requisite indemnity bond is submitted by respondent No.1, the

same shall be forthwith considered by the appellants herein.

13. The writ appeal stands disposed of in the above

said terms.

No order as to costs.

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE CA