2. The case of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of the property situated at D.No.103/1 and he had leased out the property to one S.Viswanathan on monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. The 4 th respondent/ Assistant Engineer made an inspection on 19.09.2015 and claimed that the electricity connection under the tariff IIIB was unauthorizedly used for a different premises. It is stated that the electricity was used not in the place of supply point, but was extended through an underground cable 500 feet away. It is further claimed that a supply is already availed under tariff IIIB bearing SC.No.046-001-898 in the name of Saravanan for the adjoining premises. However, there is no unauthorized extension as alleged by the 4 th respondent nor any violation to section 126 of the Electricity Act. The tariff in respect of both the premises is under IIIB. The consumption is being monitored by a meter fixed in both the premises. Both the premises are distinctively separated. Arbitrarily, the 4 th respondent had computed the user at 2,23,672 units and issued the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 4
