ORDER
J. Eswara Prasad, J.
1. The petitioner questions the demand made by the respondent in Annexure-A for payment of electric charges on the ground that he is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2C of the Electricity Act, 1910 and he prays for quashing the demand in Annexure-A.
2. It is case of the petitioner that he is the owner of property bearing No. 42 and 42/1, Dispensary Road, Bangalore which comprises two shops in the ground floor and residential portion above the shops which he purchased on 2.2.1987. On the date of the purchase, the building was old and dilapidated and there was no power supply to the shop bearing No. 42/1 which was under the occupation of tenant of the previous owner by name Krishnamurthy Varma. The petitioner got the said tenant evicted and took possession of the shop. Subsequently, the officials of the second respondent
have demanded payment of alleged dues pertaining to the Krishnamurthy Varma and threatened the petitioner that the electricity supply will be disconnected if the said arrears are not paid. However, the petitioner offered to pay 25% of the alleged arrears under the impression that the same was Rs. 10,000/-. To the surprise of the petitioner, a letter dated 31.3.1989 demanding a sum of Rs. 49,127=90 in Annexure-C was received. The petitioner suitably replied stating that no such demand shall be made from the owner when he is not a consumer as there was no privity of contract between him and the Board.
3. In the objections filed by the respondent, it was stated that the petitioner was given a number of notices to show cause why the arrears should not be collected from him and that Section 24 of the act contemplates disconnection of the electricity supply to the consumer neglecting to pay the arrears. It is therefore contended that the demand was proper and that the respondent is entitled to disconnect the power supply for non-payment of arrears.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not even a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Electricity Act, 1910. The said Section reads as follows:
“Consumer” means any person who is supplied with energy by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying energy to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving energy with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be.”
5. This point was considered by the Bombay High Court in FATECHAND MURLIDHAR v. M.S.E. BOARD, NAGPUR . It was held that merely because a person is the owner of a building, there is no nexus between the owner of the building and the premises. The owner of the building is, therefore, not included in the definition of the word ‘consumer’ in Section 2(c) where the premises are in the occupation of his tenant.
6. The petitioner asserted that he purchased the premises in question on 2.2.1987 and got the tenant evicted by taking the proceedings under the Rent Control Act. It is further submitted that the electric power supply to the shop bearing No. 42/1 which was under the occupation of tenant of the previous owner was disconnected in August-1986 prior to the purchase by the petitioner. He further asserted that he is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(c), of the Act. In the statement of objections none of these assertions of the petitioner were contravened. It is therefore taken to be admitted that the electric power supply of the tenant was disconnected in August-1986 by the date of purchase by the petitioner and the supply of power to the tenant upto August 1986 will not amount to supply of energy to the petitioner who purchased the building in the year 1987 Petitioner as the owner of the building does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(c) of the Act. When the petitioner is, not a consumer within the meaning of the Act, the question of application of Section 24 of the Act does not arise and no claim can be made from him for recovery of the arrears due from the tenant of the previous owner.
7. In the view I have taken, impugned Annexure-A cannot stand and hence Annexure-A is quashed. The power supply to the petitioner shall be restored without insisting for payment of dues under Annexure-A, provided there are no other arrears.
8. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.