ORDER 1. This is an appeal by the landlord under section 32 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961, against the order, dated 7.7.1965, passed by the District Judge, Bhopal, in Rent Control Appeal No. 1 of 1964, affirming the order, dated 5-12-1963, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Bhopal, in Rent Control Case No. 55/A-90-ADM/62-63, directing the landlord to restore the amenity available to the tenant which he had been deprived of contrary to Section 38 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 2. The respondent in his petition to the Rent Controlling Authority complained that the present appellant who was the landlord, had closed one door leading to the gallery. As a result, the tenant found considerable difficulty in using the gallery, which was a part of the leased premises. 3. The appellant in his defence denied that he was the landlord. His contention was that his wife, Mst. Mullobai was the landlord. Further, he denied that he had closed the door, or that the gallery form part of the leased premises. 4. The Rent Controlling Authority, as also the District Judge upheld all the contentions of the tenant and negatived those of the present appellant. Hence the present appeal. 5. So far as the questions whether the appellant had closed the door leading to the gallery and whether the gallery formed part of the leased premises are concerned, the findings of the Courts below, in my opinion, are concluded as findings of fact; and as such, they are not open to an attack under section 32 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. No illegality or misapprehension is demonstrably established on the part of the Courts below. Therefore, I decline to re-examine these questions of facts. Agreeing with the Courts below, I hold that it has been established that the appellant closed the door leading to the gallery and that the gallery formed part of the leased premises. The only question of law that has been canvassed in this Court and that, in my opinion, needs consideration is whether the appellant not being the landlord, but merely the landlord's agent, could an order directing him to restore the amenity be passed under section 38 of the Act. 6. It has been established beyond doubt that the appellant is not the respondent's landlord. On the other hand, the appellant's wife Mst. 6. It has been established beyond doubt that the appellant is not the respondent's landlord. On the other hand, the appellant's wife Mst. Mullobai is the landlord, although the appellant as her agent has been acting on her behalf in the matter of entering into the contract of lease and in the matter of recovery of rent. Mst. Mullobai has never come into picture at all; and the appellant has always dealt with the respondent as the landlord's authorised agent. On these facts, the question of law has to be considered. 7. Section 38 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is as follows:- "38. Cutting off or withholding essential supply or service- (1) No landlord either himself or through any person purporting to act on his behalf shall without Just and sufficient cause cut off or withhold any essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the accommodation let to him. (2) If a landlord contravenes the provisions of subsection (1), the tenant may make an application to the Rent Controlling Authority complaining of such contravention. (3) If the Rent Controlling Authority on inquiry finds that the essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the accommodation was cut off or withheld by the landlord without just and sufficient cause, it shall make an order directing the landlord to restore such supply or service. (4) The Rent Controlling Authority may in its discretion direct that compensation not exceeding fifty rupees- (a) be paid to the landlord by the tenant, if the application under sub-section (2) was made frivolously or vexatiously; (b) be paid to the tenant by the landlord, if the landlord has cut off or withheld the supply or service without just and sufficient cause. Explanation I.-In this section, "essential supply or service" includes supply of water, electricity, lights in passages and on staircases, conservancy and sanitary services. Explanation II.-For the purposes of this section, withholding any essential supply or service shall include acts or omissions attributable to the landlord on account of which the essential supply or service is cut off by the local authority or any other competent authority. 8. The phrase "any essential supply or service" would naturally include things such as electricity supply, water supply, door-ways which may serve as passages, shutting of sources of natural air or light, removing articles of daily use in a furnished house. 8. The phrase "any essential supply or service" would naturally include things such as electricity supply, water supply, door-ways which may serve as passages, shutting of sources of natural air or light, removing articles of daily use in a furnished house. Therefore, closing a door-way which serves as a passage will undoubtedly be a contravention of section 38 (1) of the Act. In this connection, I might refer to the observations of Ramaswami, J. In Narayanan Vs. Appukutty. Further, I may refer to the observations of Hemeon, J. in Gulabchand Vs, King Emperor [36 MPLC 22C=ILR 1948 Nag 365], wherein it was held that if the landlord interferes with the conveniences enjoyed by a tenant in such a manner that the tenant's enjoyment of the accommodation let out to him is materially affected, such a matter would be actionable under the similar provisions made in the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. Thus, there can be no doubt that if the gallery formed part of the leased premises, the landlord by closing the door-way, would be contravening section 38 (1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 9. It is not necessary that the landlord should deprive a tenant of the amenity himself. He may do it through some other person purporting to act on his behalf. Therefore, the wording of sub, section (1) clearly indicates that interference need not be by the landlord himself. Even if it be by some other person purporting to act on behalf of the landlord, the landlord can be restrained from interfering with enjoyment of the amenity or can be ordered to restore the amenity. Thus, there is no bar against an agent being proceeded against. But even though an action may lie against an agent, I am of opinion that the landlord must be made a party as ultimately it is the landlord's responsibility or liability to restore the amenity or to pay the compensation as is clear from the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) of section 38. It would be highly inappropriate to allow proceedings to go on against the agent alone. The main responsibility being that of the landlord, he must be impleaded as a party; and in addition, if any other person purporting to act on his behalf has interfered with the amenity, he may also be impleaded along with the landlord. 10. It would be highly inappropriate to allow proceedings to go on against the agent alone. The main responsibility being that of the landlord, he must be impleaded as a party; and in addition, if any other person purporting to act on his behalf has interfered with the amenity, he may also be impleaded along with the landlord. 10. This question, in my opinion, will have to be considered from two angles. As per the definition of 'landlord' provided by section 2 (b) of the 1961 Act, it will include a person who for the time being is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any accommodation, whether on his own ac• count or on account of any other person or as trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the accommodation were let to a tenant and includes every person not being a tenant who from time to time derives title under a landlord. Similarly, comprehensive definitions were provided by the C.P. and Berar Letting of Accommodation and Houses Rent Control Order, 1949 as per Clause 2 (4) of the same; as also by section 3 (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955. As per the opening words of section 2 of the 1961 Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the definitions would be as given in this section. There may be some cases where the context may otherwise require. For instance, it is only the landlord who would be entitled to determine the tenancy as per section 106 of the transfer of Property Act. An Agent cannot do it. Therefore, with reference to the question of determination of the tenancy, it is the landlord alone who would be able to do it, as laid down by a Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court in Mohd. Nurul Huda Vs. Kikabhoy. Of course in other cases where the landlord is not person all; required to do something, the phrase would certainly include an agent as well, who purports to act on behalf of the landlord. But although such person may be proceeded against, is it necessary that the landlord should be impleaded as a party in all cases. 11. Kikabhoy. Of course in other cases where the landlord is not person all; required to do something, the phrase would certainly include an agent as well, who purports to act on behalf of the landlord. But although such person may be proceeded against, is it necessary that the landlord should be impleaded as a party in all cases. 11. Section 38 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 envisages proceedings being started against an agent who might act on behalf of a landlord. In such cases the landlord would be the principal party. But the agent might be a proper party. The liability to pay compensation or the right to receive compensation undoubtedly vests in the landlord as per subsections (3) and (4) of section 38 of the Act. Will the word 'landlord' in those sub sections also include the landlords agent? So far as the civil liability to pay compensation is concerned, it would be the personal right or the personal liability of the landlord who is the owner of the property. An Agent may, at the most, be held liable for contravention of the provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 by virtue of the comprehensive definition provided by section 2 (b) of the Act. Therefore, only for that limited purpose, the word, 'landlord' will certainly include an agent, But so far as the rights and obligations under the Transfer of property Act are concerned, which are exercisable or dischargeable by the landlord alone, the phrase cannot be interpreted to include an agent. Similarly, as regards the enforcement of contractual rights and obligations are concerned, some of them may be enforceable or dischargeable by the landlord alone. In these cases also, it will be difficult to interpret the word 'landlord' to include an agent. 12. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the legislature in its wisdom has deliberately provided for such a comprehensive definition of a 'landlord' in order to counter the mischief that some landlords might indulge in through their agents. In such cases where the grievance is factually against an agent, though in law it may be against the landlord, the consideration as to who is a necessary party and who is a proper party, will evidently not weigh, although certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable to the rent control proceedings. In such cases where the grievance is factually against an agent, though in law it may be against the landlord, the consideration as to who is a necessary party and who is a proper party, will evidently not weigh, although certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable to the rent control proceedings. But in view of the fact that the legislature has made a specific provision in section 38 of the Act facilitating proceedings against the agent alone, I am of opinion that the proceedings are not rendered illegal, if the landlord is not impleaded, although under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the landlord may be a necessary party, while the agent may only be a proper party. For this reason, I feel that the appellant cannot be heard to say that the proceedings are rendered illegal as the landlord was neither impleaded nor noticed. For the purposes of contravention of the Accommodation Control Act, especially with reference to section 38 of the Act, an agent being included within the definition of the word 'landlord' proceedings against him alone would be tenable. But different considerations might arise where a civil liability such as the responsibility to pay compensation is sought to be fastened, an authorised agent might as well say that the liability is that of the landlord who is the owner of the property and at whose dictation he did the act complained of. In such types of cases, it may be necessary to implead the landlord where a claim to compensation is made. But if the grievance be in respect of denial of some amenity, the agent can certainly be proceeded against, if for all intents and purposes he has been exercising that authority on behalf of his principal, the landlord. As the legislature has made a specific provision in this behalf, I do not think that failure to implead the landlord would be fatal to the tenant's case. A landlord might be able to contend that the agent acted beyond the powers of his authority or contrary to his instructions. But that may be a matter between the agent and the principal with which the Rent Controlling Authority would not be concerned. A landlord might be able to contend that the agent acted beyond the powers of his authority or contrary to his instructions. But that may be a matter between the agent and the principal with which the Rent Controlling Authority would not be concerned. In such cases at lest, an order passed against the agent will certainly be binding against the landlord, though it may not be binding in such matters where the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or any other enactment; specifically require the landlord to act. In such cases only, the order against the agent may not be binding against the landlord in his absence; and in that event only, a landlord might become a necessary party. 13. So far as the present case is concerned, the Rent Controlling Authority awarded compensation of Rs.50 as against the appellant. In the view that I have taken above, impleading the landlord would be necessary in a case of this type as ultimately it will be the landlord's liability to pay compensation. The agent's liability to pay compensation would only arise if the landlord is able to prove that the agent acted without the authority or the agent acted contrary to his instructions. In that event the landlord can certainly avoid his liability to pay compensation, which can be fastened on the agent. From this point of view, it is necessary to remand this case to the Rent Controlling Authority for a proper trial in accordance with law after allowing the landlord to be impleaded as a party. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondent urged that it should not be necessary to remand this case as the agent can be proceeded against in the matter of denial of amenity and the landlord may now be impleaded only for the purposes of deciding the question of liability for compensation. Therefore, he suggests that the order passed by the Courts below be upheld and the case be remanded to the Rent Controlling Authority only for the purpose of ascertaining the liability for compensation. I might have been inclined to accept this suggestion, had the two questions been severable, and not inter-connected. Therefore, he suggests that the order passed by the Courts below be upheld and the case be remanded to the Rent Controlling Authority only for the purpose of ascertaining the liability for compensation. I might have been inclined to accept this suggestion, had the two questions been severable, and not inter-connected. As I am of opinion that these two questions are inter-connected, it would not be desirable or proper to remand the case to the Rent Controlling Authority for a limited purpose only of deciding the question of compensation alone. But it will be necessary to exercise inherent powers of remand in the interests of justice with a direction that the landlord might be allowed to be impleaded as a party; and then the case be tried on merits. 14. As a result, the order passed by the Courts below is set aside and the case is remitted to the Rent Controlling Authority for a proper trial in accordance with law as per the observations and directions given above. Under the circumstances, the costs of all Courts incurred up till now, may follow the result of the decision after remand; and the same will be in the discretion of the Court that may happen to consider the question of costs. Counsel's fee in this Court shall be Rs.30 if certified.