2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has become lawful owner of the schedule property, since he has purchased the same by way of public auction conducted by M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank under SARFAESI Act 2002 in the year 2015 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,30,50,000/-. When the property in question was brought in a public auction, the petitioner took part as a bidder and declared as a highest bidder. After payment of the entire sale consideration, all the original documents were handed over by the Bank including the sale document No.1688/2001 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Adyar to the petitioner. Since the property was originally mortgaged to City Financial Consumer Finance India Limited by one M.Krishnamurthy and his wife Nazreen Krishnamurthy, in terms of the decision taken by the City Financial Consumer Finance India Limited, the schedule mentioned property was assigned to M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank for the debts due from the said M.Krishnamurthy and Nazreen Krishnamurthy under a registered Assignment Agreement dated 31.10.2012 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office at Sanganer, Jaipur. After payment of entire sale consideration, since the petitioner has been declared as the highest bidder, he was issued with the sale certificate dated 15.06.2018. Therefore, the petitioner has explained before the second respondent that he has become owner of the property on the basis of the property purchased in public auction conducted under SARFAESI Act, 20002 from Kotak Mahindra Bank and requested the second respondent not to disconnect the electricity connection in the schedule property. But, the second respondent refused to accept the request letter dated 03.01.2019 and rejected the same stating that the petitioner does not have a sale deed registered in his name. Hence, the petitioner also sent a legal notice by registered post on 03.01.2019. When the sale certificate dated 15.06.2018 issued in favour of the petitioner clearly shows that the petitioner has purchased the schedule property, the second respondent, on payment of usual charges, ought to have continued the electricity supply to the schedule mentioned property. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for a direction to that effect.
