This case examines an original petition challenging an order directing a landlord to assist a tenant in restoring electric supply. The Court held that the interim order enforcing injunction against forceful eviction was within pleadings, and the landlord must assist the tenant's amenities.
The original petition challenging the lower court orders was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/27TH JYAISHTA, 1938
OP(C).No. 423 of 2016 (O)
-------------------------OS.NO. 230/2015 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI
PETITIONER :
FABIAN SUNNY K., S/O. STENSILAVOUS, KONNULLY HOUSE, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI - 682 005.
BY ADVS.SRI.SAJAN MANNALI SRI.AADITHYAN S.MANNALI
RESPONDENT :
P.I.NAJEEB, S/O. ISMAIL, C/O. SOBHA LADIES CENTRE, C.C XVI/1007, THOPPUMPADDY, KOCHI - 682 005.
BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANIS
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
OP(C).No. 423 of 2016 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
R1(A) COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT IN O.S.NO.102/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
K. HARILAL, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.(C) No. 423 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of June, 2016
This original petition has been filed
challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Munsiff's Court, Kochi in O.S.No.230/15 and for a direction to the court below, not to compel the petitioner, who is the defendant in the above said original suit, to restore the electric supply in respect of Consumer No.4591 which does not either belong to the petitioner or to the plaint schedule property referred to in O.S. No.230/15 of the Munsiff's Court, Kochi, and for consequential relief.
shop rooms, in the main building owned by the petitioner and the suit was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner seeking an injunction
O.P.(C) No. 423 of 2016
-: 2 :-
restraining the petitioner from evicting the respondent forcefully from the plaint schedule shop room and the application for temporary injunction was allowed by Ext.P3 order. In the earlier order passed by Ext.P3, the court passed an order permitting the respondent to get the electric supply reconnected with the assistance of the Electrical Engineer, Thoppumpady Section and intimation was issued to the Electrical Engineer. The Electrical Engineer, in turn, filed a statement stating that it is not possible to give reconnection to the plaint schedule shop room and the respondent was advised to file a fresh application seeking new service connection for power supply, with necessary documents insisted by the K.S.E.B. such as completion report, ownership certificate or consent from the landlord, etc. In view of the statement
O.P.(C) No. 423 of 2016
-: 3 :-
filed by the K.S.E.B., the court below passed Ext.P4
order directing the petitioner to provide necessary assistance for getting electric supply restored in respect of Consumer No.4591 so as to give full effect to the order dated 11.9.2015, be it for a new connection or for reconnection of the existing supply. The legality and propriety of this order are under challenge in this original petition.
respondent.
apparently, it is seen that this order is passed supplementary to Ext.P3 order, which was passed
earlier in I.A. No.1319/15. Going by Ext.P3, it is seen that the respondent was permitted to get the electric supply reconnected with the assistance of
O.P.(C) No. 423 of 2016
-: 4 :-
K.S.E.B.,Thoppumpady section. Even though such an
order was passed, the K.S.E.B. was not willing to
provide electric connection and in that circumstance, the matter again posted for consideration of the court below and the court below passed Ext.P4 order, so as to enforce Ext.P3 order.
in paragraph 9 of the plaint, it is specifically averred that the cause of action for the suit arose on 30.5.2015, when the defendant and their men came to the shop room and threatened the plaintiff, and on 1.6.2015 the defendant disconnected the electric
O.P.(C) No. 423 of 2016
-: 5 :-
supply to the plaint schedule shop room continues thereafter at Rameswaram, which is within the jurisdiction of the court below. That apart, in the interlocutory application also, the respondent contended that he was enjoying electric connection since 1975 and on 1.6.2015 when he opened the room
it was noticed that electric supply was disconnected. It is also pleaded that when he enquired with the K.S.E.B., it was informed that the supply was cut by the defendant deliberately. Thus, I find that the interim orders Exts.P3 and P4, are passed on the basis of the specific pleadings and the cause of action specifically narrated in the plaint as well as in the interlocutory application filed subsequently, even though there is no prayer for directing the respondent to provide electric connection. But, it is pertinent to note that the
O.P.(C) No. 423 of 2016
-: 6 :-
relief sought for is an injunction restraining the petitioner from evicting the respondent forcefully. This Court is of the view that the above incident of alleged disconnection is narrated in support of the relief of injunction prayed for in the plaint. Needless to say, disconnection of electric connection by the landlord is an illegal device to evict the tenant from the plaint shop room and forceful eviction includes this type of methods also, though physical force is not employed. On the above analysis, I find that Exts.P3 & P4 orders are well within the pleadings and the relief sought for in the plaint.
From the very beginning the stand of the petitioner was that there was no electric connection in the plaint schedule shop room and the electric connection number which was referred to by the
O.P.(C) No. 423 of 2016
-: 7 :-
respondent is that of another shop room. But, in Ext.P3 order, the court below specifically observed that the case of the defendant that there has never been any electric connection in the disputed shop room was found not to be a believable version. Therefore, in Ext.P4, the direction was issued after rejecting the contention raised by the petitioner that there was no electric connection in the shop room and the electric connection, which was referred to by the respondent was that of another shop room. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not challenged the findings in Ext.P3 and Ext.P3 has attained finality. If that be so, the petitioner cannot raise any contention, challenging Ext.P4 also. As I referred earlier, Ext.P4 order is passed, supplementary to Ext.P3 order to give clarity and also to enforce the direction more specifically.
O.P.(C) No. 423 of 2016
-: 8 :-
Ext.P3 order was passed accepting the respondent's contentions that electric supply has been disconnected. As rightly held by the court below nothing wrong in passing an order supplementary to an order passed earlier with an intend to enforce the order passed earlier. Even though, three months had been elapsed, after passing Ext.P3 order, the respondent could not get electric connection as KSEB
was not willing to provide electric connection, unless he files a fresh application for connection. For providing a fresh application, consent of the landlord is required. This Court is of the view that so long as a tenant is holding building he has right to enjoy the building or shop room as the case may be with all amenities, which he enjoyed as a tenant till he is legally evicted in accordance with law.
O.P.(C) No. 423 of 2016
-: 9 :-
landlord, the petitioner is liable to provide all assistance to the respondent to get electric connection, even if it is a new one. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order under challenge and there is no circumstance, warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
This Original Petition (Civil) is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/- K. HARILAL,
JUDGE
OKB/DST
//True copy//
P.A. To Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with the lower court's order under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Whether a landlord is liable to provide assistance to a tenant for ensuring electricity connection to the rented premises.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Fabian Sunny K.
P.I. Najeer
K. Harilal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
