ORDER
K.P. Sivasuramaniam, J.
1. The Petitioner prays for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 04-03-1996 of the respondent and quash the same.
2. The petitioner contends that her husband’s father Mr. Imam Sahib was the owner of the property. The entire unit along with the electricity connection was given under lease in the year 1975 itself to one Robiar Karaiyer. It is alleged that the said tenant had committed theft of electricity and had also left huge arrears payable to the respondent. On 14-03-1996 the impugned order was passed by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.88,670/-. Hence the above Writ Petition.
3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the theft had been committed only by the tenant against whom criminal proceedings have also been filed and that there was no notice to the petitioner as contemplated under Clause 37 of the conditions.
4. I have also heard Mr. Vasudevan, learned counsel for the respondent.
5.Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the learned single Judge of Bombay High Court in (Fatechand Murlidhar and etc Vs Maharashtra Electricity Board, Nagpur) and reliance is placed on the interpretation by the learned Judge of the word ‘Consumer’ under sections 2(C) of the Electricity Act 1910. In that case the tenant in occupation of the premises was held to be the ‘consumer’ and that the owner of the land cannot be included within the meaning of the word ‘consumer’.
6. Mr.Vasudevan, learned counsel contends that the notice had already been issued to the father-in-law of the petitioner on 04.10.1993 itself. Therefore, there was no failure to comply with Clause 37. He also relies on the judgment of M.S.Janarthanam, J. in (Veeraseakaran and others Vs. State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, C-1 Police Station) reported in 1991 Vol.XXXV MLJ 255. That case arose out of the Criminal Proceedings initiated under section 39(1) of the Electricity Act. While interpreting Section 2(C) learned Judge held that the word “consumer” would include the owner of the premises who had been given service connection from the Electricity Board, and that the fact that the owner was not using electrical energy was immaterial.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for either parties.
7. As far as the alleged failure to give notice is concerned, the contention of the respondent that due notice has been served to the erstwhile owner on 04-10-1993 is not disputed.
8. On the issue of liability of the owner in terms of the definition of the expression ‘consumer’ in Section 2 ΒΈ of the Electricity Act, the decision of the Bombay High Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not apply to the facts of the present case. In that case, the agreement with the state Electricity Board was by the tenant himself and it was he who had entered into a the contract with the Electricity Board. It was only in those circumstances, the Bombay High Court held that the owner the building had no nexus with the Electricity Board. In this case it is not disputed that the subscriber is the owner of the premises and that the tenant has no nexus with Electricity Board.
9. In the result I do not find any grounds to sustain the objections raised by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
10. It is, however, made clear that it is certainly open to the owner to proceed against the tenant for the recovery of the amounts due under the impugned demand. It is certainly open to the owner to proceed against the Tenant for the recovery of the amount. However, considering that the petitioner as the present owner had not received any notice, a fresh notice may be issued to the petitioner.