Allowed

M/S. D. J. Enterprises v. Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2024WP/19251/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, tenants of industrial plots, sought restoration of electricity discontinued by BESCOM authorities at the landlady's behest. The High Court held that electricity is an essential service and a tenant in occupation qualifies as a consumer; it directed BESCOM to restore power.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to restore/continue electricity supply to the installation bearing RR No.DPP 521 having its meter No.3810256.

M/S. D. J. Enterprises Vs Bengaluru Electricity… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31892 WP No. 19251 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.19251 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. D.J. ENTERPRISES, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.406 & 407, KIADB SOMPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, DABASPET, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI ABHISHEK S/O. DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6436, SUBHASH NAGARA EXTENSION, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562123.

¶10

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

M/S. JAYALAKSHMI ENTERPRISES, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.406 & 407, KIADB SOMPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, DABASPET, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT. ASHWINI D. D/O. DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6436, SUBHASH NAGARA EXTENSION, NELAMANGALA TOWN, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31892 WP No. 19251 of 2022

¶14

AND:

¶15

BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, (BESCOM), K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶16

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (ELC) BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, (BESCOM), NELAMANGALA TOWN, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELC) BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, (BESCOM), DABASPET, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶18

SMT. LALITHA GOWDA FATHER’S NAME OR THE HUSBAND’S NAME IS NOT KNOWN THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PARTNER OF M/S. DATA STREAMS INC., NO.29, 3^RD CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 024.

¶19

RESIDING AT NO.1628, 1^ST A CROSS, CHANDRA LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. ... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. SWAMINI GANESH MOHANAMBAL, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI M. SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 (VK NOT FILED))

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO RESTORE THE POWER SUPPLY TO THE SCHEDULE PREMISES WHICH IS HAVING THE RR NO.DPP521 AND METER NO.3810256 ATTACHED TO DABASPET JURISDICTION (BESCOM).

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:31892 WP No. 19251 of 2022

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner is seeking for the following prayers:

¶28

“i) issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to restore the power supply to the Schedule premises which is having the RR No.DPP521 and meter No.3810256 attached to Dabaspet jurisdiction (BESCOM);

¶29

ii) And to grant such other relief or reliefs which this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case including awarding of cost.”

¶30

Brief facts leading to filing of this petition is as

¶31

under:

¶32

(i) Respondent No.4 was allotted plot Nos.406 and 407 in Sub-layout of Somapura, 1^st Stage Industrial Area comprised in Sy.No.186-Part within the village limits of Niduvanda Village, Somapura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, admeasuring 4047 sq. mts. (hereinafter referred to as "the schedule premises” for the sake of convenience) by the Karnataka Industrial

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31892 WP No. 19251 of 2022

¶34

Development Board (“the KIADB” for short). Pursuant to the allotment, possession certificate was issued and leasecum-sale agreement was entered in respect of the schedule premises by the KIADB with respondent No.4.

¶35

(ii) Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have been registered in the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME), i.e., UDYAM and have taken GST Number to the industry from the concerned authority. The petitioners have taken the schedule premises for rent from respondent No.4 by executing two separate registered lease agreements and in order to take the electricity connection to their industrial unit, have executed a power supply agreement through M/s.Data Stream Inc. in which respondent No.4 is a managing director and pursuant to the same, the BESCOM authorities have sanctioned power vide RR No.DPP 521 having its meter No.3810256.

¶36

It is stated that, the petitioners on the assurance of respondent No.4 have executed a separate cancellation lease deed in favour of respondent No.4, as

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31892 WP No. 19251 of 2022

¶38

respondent No.4 approached the petitioners stating that KIADB authorities are taking steps to annul the allotment of plots made by it in her favour on account of violation of the terms of allotment, precisely, that she has informed, that the lease deed one executed by her in favour of the petitioners is in violation of terms of allotment and assured the petitioners that after taking the absolute sale deed from KIADB in respect of the subject plots, she would execute the fresh lease with the same terms and conditions. It is the case of the petitioners that they have continued with the tenancy despite cancellation of the lease agreements and have paid rents to respondent No.4 even subsequent to the cancellation of deeds dated 04.05.2022 without any default.

¶39

It is stated that, respondent No.3, at the behest of respondent No.4 has disconnected the power supply to the industrial plots without any reason or cause, despite the fact that the petitioners are regularly paying the power

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31892 WP No. 19251 of 2022

¶41

consumption charges to the BESCOM authorities and also the rent.

¶42

The grievance of the petitioners is that, the action on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 3 to disconnect the power supply to the schedule premises is depriving the right of the petitioner with the electricity supply being the essential service and the denial of essential service to the petitioner unit at the instance of respondent No.4, that too, when the petitioners have not committed any default in consuming the power supply to their premises, as such, the impugned action of respondent No.3 in disconnecting the power supply to the schedule premises is improper and unjust.

¶43

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – authorities have filed

¶44

the statement of objections, inter alia, contending that the present petition is not maintainable as in connection of electricity, there is an alternative remedy to approach the competent Court under Section 49 of the Karnataka Rent

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:31892 WP No. 19251 of 2022

¶47

Act, 1999 (“HRC Act” for short) as in the instant case, the dispute is between the tenant and landlord.

¶48

That on request of respondent No.4 - partner of M/s.Data Streams Inc., who is the ‘consumer’ as defined under Clause 2.18 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of the Distribution Licensee in the State of Karnataka defines the word ‘consumer’ and respondent No.4 is the ‘consumer’ within the definition under Clause 2.18 and upon the request made by the ‘consumer’ – respondent No.4, the supply of electricity was disconnected.

¶49

Heard Sri Sunil S. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Swamini Ganesh Mohanambal and Sri M.Shiva Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶50

As stated supra, the disconnection of the electricity to the schedule premises is on the behest of respondent No.4 who is the landlord of the petition

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31892 WP No. 19251 of 2022

¶52

premises. The question that falls for consideration before this Court is:

¶53

“whether the electricity connection can be disconnected by respondent Nos.1 to 3 to the schedule premises at the behest of respondent No.4 in the present facts and circumstances of the case”?

¶54

The petitioners and respondent No.4 had entered into an agreement under lease agreement on 08.03.2021 by executing two separate lease agreements, respondent No.4 as a managing director of M/s. Data Streams Inc. entered into an agreement for power supply in respect of the schedule premises and the BESCOM authority sanctioned power supply vide RR No.DPP 521 having its meter No.3810256. It is the case of the petitioners that though a cancellation deed is executed in favour of respondent No.4 on 04.05.2022, the petitioners have continued with the tenancy in respect of the schedule premises and they continued to pay rents to respondent No.4 and the same is evident from Annexures-G, G-1 which are the bank account statements of the petitioners

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:31892 WP No. 19251 of 2022

¶56

to establish that they have paid rents to respondent No.4 subsequent to 04.05.2022.

¶57

Respondent No.3 at the behest of respondent No.4 on 13.08.2022 disconnected the power supply to the industrial plots. The petitioners gave representation to respondent No.3 to restore the power supply. The reason assigned by respondent No.3 was that respondent No.4 4 had intimated them to disconnect the power supply to the premises. The objections raised by respondent Nos.1 to 3 relating to the writ petition is based on the ground that the petitioners are tenants and the dispute between the tenant and landlord-respondent No.4 has to be raised under Section 49 of the HRC Act and the writ petition is not maintainable. The fact remains that the present schedule premise is an industrial establishments, and the HRC Act is not applicable.

¶58

The next question is that the petitioner being the tenant in respect of the schedule premises and whether respondent Nos.1 to 3 can disconnect the power

¶59

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:31892 WP No. 19251 of 2022

¶60

supply on request of respondent No.4. A mere dispute between the landlord and tenant is no ground to effect the disconnection of power supply to the unit. If the landlord had any grievance against the tenant, it required to be resolved in a separate forum and not by giving a letter to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to the effect of disconnection.

¶61

Electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal by the landlord to issue a no objection certificate.

¶62

All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is, whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question. The ‘consumer’ means any person supplied with electricity supply for his own use by a licensee or Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying the electricity to the public under this Act or any other law being in force and includes any person whose premises for the time being connected for

¶63

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:31892 WP No. 19251 of 2022

¶64

the purpose of receiving electricity with works of licence, the Government or such other person as the case may be. Respondent No.3 could not have disconnected the power supply to the schedule premises merely on the request of respondent No.4 who is the landlord of the petitioners, since the electricity supply is an essential service, respondent No.3 being a constituent of State authority had no right to deny the essential service to the petitioners’ unit at the instance of respondent No.4, that too when the petitioners had not committed any default in paying consumer charges to the premises.

¶65

The denial of power supply to the schedule premises at the instance of respondent No.4 is illegal and necessary directions needs to be issued in the present facts. Though the person who has executed an agreement with the Board can undoubtedly be treated as a ‘consumer’, however, there are two categories of persons referred: the person who is in an occupation can also be treated as a ‘consumer’ for the purpose of electricity

¶66

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:31892 WP No. 19251 of 2022

¶67

supply from the Board. Therefore, when the electricity supply is obtained to a premises and the person in occupation of the premises, even if he is not the owner of the premises and more particularly when he is a tenant of the premises, should be treated as the ‘consumer’ of electricity and such a person would fall under the category of ‘consumer’ for the purposes of electricity and any dispute between the landlord and tenant of a premises may not deprive a tenant of his right to have continued supply of electricity to his premises. The action on the part of the respondents in disconnecting the power supply warrants interference.

¶68

This Court, by the interim order had directed to restore the power supply to the schedule premises, in the said circumstances and for the reasons stated supra, this Court pass the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to restore/continue electricity supply to the

¶71

13 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:31892 WP No. 19251 of 2022

¶73

installation bearing RR No.DPP 521 having its meter No.3810256 and the petitioners shall pay

¶74

the consumption charges.

¶75

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶76

MBM

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

M/S. D. J. Enterprises v. Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. D. J. Enterprises v. Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Superintendent of Central Excise Vs Sri G Ramachandra G P

The Head Mistress Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Sri G K Venkateshwara Rao Vs v S T Tillers & Tractors Ltd.

R Chandru Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Zaibunnisa Vs Late Abdul Jabeer Khan