MESSRS JAGADAMBA CHEMICAL CO HYDERABAD Vs. HYDERABAD SILK MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case, Messrs. Jagadamba Chemical Co., Hyderabad, filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act of 1960, praying to direct the respondent to restore the supply of electricity to the petitioner's factory. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner has taken a part of the plot No. 24/1, bearing Municipal No. 1-8-667, Industrial Area, Azamabad, Hyderabad City, with three tin-shed (godown) rooms, one bath-room, one latrine, one three-phase electric line and one single-phase electric line, from the respondent on lease on 5th October, 1960, for ten years under an oral agreement in order to start a factory for the manufacture of Sodium Silicate, etc., after constructing necessary buildings for the factory on the open land. It is also alleged that it was agreed between the parties that the electricity for running the factory and for light shall be from the main supply given to the respondent by the Government at a fixed charge of Rs. 150 per month, whether the electricity is used or not, and that the agreed rent for the plot including the constructions is Rs. 101. It is further alleged that the petitioner, after taking permission from the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, constructed the necessary buildings for the factory, etc., at his own costs and that he incurred a heavy expense of about Rs. 75,000 and also invested Rs. 50,000 for the business of the factory. The petitioner paid Rs. 1,500 to the respondent on 4th. November, 1960, by way of deposit, and also Rs. 1,004 towards the rent and electrical charges from 5th October, 1960 to 4th February, 1961, on different dates. But the respondent did not pass any receipt for those amounts. It was further stated in the petition that the respondent demanded an enhancement of rent by Rs. 100 per month in the beginning of March, 1961, but the petitioner refused to comply with that demand. As a consequence, the respondent, without any just and sufficient cause and without any notice to the petitioner, disconnected and stopped the supply of electricity of the three-phase line, through which the petitioner's factory was running, on 7th March, 1961 at 5 P.M. and due to which the factory had to be stopped working for want of supply of electricity.

(2.) It was on these allegations that the petition was filed under section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for restoration of the supply of electricity of the three-phase line to enable the petitioner to work the factory. This petition was filed on 13th March, 1961. On the same day, another application was filed under section 14 (3) of the Act praying that an interim order directing the respondent to restore the electricity current immediately may be passed. On that date itself, the Rent Controller passed the following order :-

(3.) On 21st June, 1961, the Rent Controller passed another order wherein he stated that he found it necessary to amend his prior order dated 19th June, 1961. He deleted the direction given to the respondent to furnish security for Rs. 1,000 and to file an undertaking in the Court. He stated that those two questions will agaia be considered on 6th July, 1961 to which date the case was posted. It was made clear in that order that the tenant shall get a separate metre immediately as directed in the said order dated 19th June, 1961 passed in I.A. No. 256/B/1961. It appears that the office of the Rent Controller itself addressed a letter dated 22nd June, 1961 to the Electricity Department requesting it to supply the petitioner's factory a separate metre. In the petition dated nth June, 1961, the petitioner stated that the Electricity Department did not comply with the orders of the Rent Controller and refused to give electricity supply on the ground that the respondent has raised an objection to the giving of any separate supply to the tenant without his consent. It was pointed out that in spite of the orders of the Rent Controller dated 21st June, 1961 for a separate metre, the respondent objected to the supply of such a separate metre to the petitioner's factory and thus committed contempt of Court. It was prayed that proper orders may be passed directing the Electricity Department to give electricity supply with a separate metre to the petitioner in compliance with the orders of the Rent Controller dated 21st June, 1961 and to bind over the respondent to withdraw from his objections taken in the Electricity Department and to start proceedings for the contempt of Court against the respondent and the Electricity Department. This matter which related to passing of interim orders under section 14, clause (3) of the Act, was finally heard on 1st August, 1961, by the Rent Controller, who reviewed all the events that passed uptill then and dismissed the application for interim orders. In that order, the Rent Controller pointed out that the respondent promptly complied with its order dated 13th March, 1961 and restored the supply of electricity, but that it was the Electricity Department that again cut off the supply on 16th June, 1961, since such a supply was opposed to the rules of the Electricity Department and that the respondent was not responsible for the situation thus created and that the respondent himself had to suffer initially for contravening the Electricity Department rules inasmuch as the supply of the electricity to him also was cut off by the Department, though, however, the respondent got the bupply to him restored later on. It was held that the respondent was not responsible for the cutting off the supply by the Electricity Department, and that he could not be ordered to restore the supply of electricity contravening the Electricity Department rules. It was also held that that the question of addressing the Electricity Department for fixing a separate metre to the petitioner does not arise since the Electricity Department; which is not a party to the case, cannot be asked to do anything which is against their own Standing Orders. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of City Small Causes, Hyderabad; but, that appeal was dismissed on the ground that the order in question was only an interim order and as such is not appealable. It is against that order that the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.