( 1 ) THIS petition is by the tenant under S. 50 of the Mysore Rent Control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act ). It is directed against an order refusing to restore an essential supply or service of water, made in H. R. C. No. 488 of 1970 by the First Additional First Munsiff at Bangalore on 9-9-1970. ( 2 ) IT would appear that the tenant was put in possession of the premises in September 1966. Later on he was regularly inducted by virtue of an order of allotment made by the Rent Controller on 23rd of October, 1967. When he was earlier inducted into possession there were arrears regarding water rates payable to the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage board (hereinafter referred to as the Water Board) to the tune of rs. 493. 60 Ps. This arrears was further increased by the time he was inducted as allottee. It is also stated by Shri S. R. Rajashekhara Murthy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the premises consists of three tenements and only one oi them was allotted to the petitioner. Sometime thereafter, the Water Board disconnected the water supply for non-payment of arrears of water charges. Aggrieved by this action the petitioner approached the Court in the said H. R. C. petition. It would appear, that by some arrangement, between the landlord and the tenant, the arrears had to be shared by the tenants occupying the three tenements. The case of the landlord simply is that the charges should be borne by the tenants. ( 3 ) THE learned Munsiff, came to the conclusion that the disconnection was not an act which could be attributed to the landlord, and therefore, the case did not fall within S. 43 of the Rent Control Act. It is also observed by him that if the previous tenants had not paid the water charges, it was up to the petitioner to pay the same and secure restoration of water supply, and thereafter proceed against the other tenants for the recovery of their portion of the arrears of water charges. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has approached this Court. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has approached this Court. ( 4 ) IT is contended by Shri Rajashekhara Murthy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that once an allotment of a premises is made by the Rent Controller, it is clearly implicit therein, that the premises was in a condition to be occupied by a tenant. In other words, it should have all the essential services in tact. It is conceded by him, that the disconnection was sometime subsequent to his induction as a tenant by virtue of an order of allotment made by the Rent Controller. ( 5 ) HE also relied on the provisions of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Water Act) in support of a submission that a statutory obligation is on the owner of the premises in this case, and he should pay the water charges irrespective of the fact, whether the tenants had not paid the same in accordance with the agreement entered into between the landlord and the tenants. It is, therefore, argued that the disconnection is traceable directly to a default on the part of the landlord. In such a situation it would be clear that the disconnection could be attributable to the landlord. In this view of the matter, the conclusion of the learned Munsiff to the contrary would not be sustainable. I am in agreement with this submission of the learned counsel. ( 6 ) S. 43 of the Rent Control Act, inter alia provides, that no landlord either by himself or through any person acting or purporting to act on this behalf, shall, without just or sufficient cause cut off or withhold any essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the building let to him. By means of an explanatory clause contained therein, it is provided that 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. By means of an explanatory clause contained therein, it is provided that 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. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, it seems to me reasonable to hold that when a premises is let out through the agency of the Rent Controller it should be understood that all the essential services were in tact, especially when it is a matter relating to supply of water in an urban area like Bangalore. That being so, it is the duty of the owner to see that services are provided during the tenancy of the premises. It is seen from the facts and circumstances of this case, presumably by virtue of an arrangement between the landlord and the tenants, that the water supply charges are made payable by the tenants. If there is more than one tenant, such charges should be shared among the tenants on some reasonable basis. If such charges for any reason are not paid to the Board, the owner is not absolved from the responsibility of paying such charges and thus see to the restoration of the amenity concerned. If follows from this, that he would be entitled to recover the charges so paid by him from the tenants concerned in accordance with the arrangements entered into between him and the said tenants. ( 8 ) THE question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether the landlord is responsible to pay water charges in the facts and circumstances of this case. That he is responsible to meet such liability would be clear if one looks at the provisions of S. 53 of the bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act. The relevant sub-clauses occurring therein may be conveniently reproduced. They are: "53. . That he is responsible to meet such liability would be clear if one looks at the provisions of S. 53 of the bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act. The relevant sub-clauses occurring therein may be conveniently reproduced. They are: "53. . Power to cut off water supply:- (1) The Board may cut off the supply of water from any premises.- * * * * * * (c) if any charges or any other sum due for water or for the cost of making a connection or the hire of a meter or the cost of carrying out any work or test connected with the water supply which is chargeable to any person by or under this Act is not paid within fifteen days after a bill for such charges or sums has been presented or served; x x x x x (2) (a) The owner and the occupier of the premises shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of all the sums referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1 ). '' it is clear from the above provisions that the Board would be entitled to cut off the water supply to any premises if any charges or any other sum due for water supply remains unpaid. It is further clear, that the liability to pay such charges is cast upon the occupier and the owner, jointly and severally It. therefore follows, that the owner is liable to pay water charges. ( 9 ) AS observed by me earlier, it was the duty of the present landlord to ensure supply of water which is essential for the convenient enjoyment of the property by the occupier, the tenant. If the tenants have not paid the arrears of water charges as and when they accrue, it was the duty of the landlord to ensure such payment, either by paying it himself or persuading or causing the tenants to pay the same It, by such non-payment, water supply it, disconnevted, the default could legitimately be attributed to the landlord also. On the facts of the instant case, I am clearly of the opinion, that the disconnection of water supply to the premises in question is directly attributable to the landlord. That being so. the case falls squarely within S. 43 of the Rent control Act and the relief prayed for on that basis falls to be granted. On the facts of the instant case, I am clearly of the opinion, that the disconnection of water supply to the premises in question is directly attributable to the landlord. That being so. the case falls squarely within S. 43 of the Rent control Act and the relief prayed for on that basis falls to be granted. The order of the learned Munsiff, therefore, cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) IN this connection, it is pertinent to notice a situation which might arise in certain given circumstances. If all the tenants, who are serviced by a common meter, are agreed between themselves as to the proportion in which the water charges should be borne, the landlord will be absolved from the responsibility of meeting such charges on behalf of the tenants In case of breach of such agreement by any of the tenants, the aggrieved tenant would himself be primarily responsible for payment of such charges In case of any such payment, he can only look to the said agreement for the reimbursement of the amounts from such defaulting tenants, and pursuant to it. he may take such steps as may be open to him at law In such an event, it is not the duty of the landlord to compel the defaulting tenants to honour any such agreement In such a situation, it will not be open to the aggrieved tenant to plead that the other tenants were unavailable for the purpose of recovery of the water charges The position would be otherwise in the absence of any such agreement between the tenants themselves. In such a case, it is primarily the duty of the landlord to ensure the supply of water to a tenant, if necessary. bv paying the charges himself. If he is called upon to pay the charges as aforesaid it is always open to him to recover it in the proportion it may be due from such defaulting tenants If the landlord commits default in this behalf, such default can be attributed to him within the meaning of S. 43 of the pent Act. This of course would be the position when the water charges are agreed to be borne by the tenants themselves. This of course would be the position when the water charges are agreed to be borne by the tenants themselves. ( 11 ) IN the instant case, it is clear that the present petitioner has been called upon to pay the arrears of water charges which accrued due prior to his coming in as a tenant It is also clear from the facts and circumstances of the case, that there has been no agreement or arrangement between the petitioner and the other tenants. In these circumstances, it was the landlord's duty to have paid the arrears of water charges to ensure continuance of such an essential amenity as supply of water to the promise. As regards charges that may accrue subsequent to the induction of a tenant, the liability of the landlord as aforesaid would still be there in the absence of any agreement between the tenants themselves. Judged in the light of the above principles and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be clear that the liability to pay the water charges under S,. 33 of the Water Act, was clearly upon the landlord. This liability of courses further subject to the willingness of the complaining tenant agreeing to pay his share of the charges as may be agreed upon between him and the landlord Any non-compliance on the part of the landlord to pay the water charges amounts to a default, which is directly attributable to him, within the meaning of S. 43 of the Rent Act. This is exactly the position that has arisen in this case. It is also pertinent to observe that the landlord is not without a remedy in such an inconvenient situation For one thing, it can well be avoided if provision is made for independent meter connection to each of the tenements, comprised in a single building, separately. ( 12 ) BEFORE leaving the rase it is necessary to observe that by virtue of an interim order made by this Court, the water supply has been restored on the present petitioner making making some payments in that behalf. ( 12 ) BEFORE leaving the rase it is necessary to observe that by virtue of an interim order made by this Court, the water supply has been restored on the present petitioner making making some payments in that behalf. Since the water supply has been restored, in these circumstances, what remains to be done bv the petitioner-tenant is to take such steps as may be open to him at law to recover the water charges already paid by him This however, would not dispose of the matter finally It is represented by shri Rajashekhara Murthy. that notwithstanding the payments made by him so far, some arrears would still be due to the Board. In case, the landlord fails to pay the same, it would be open to the tenant to make such payments as may be found necessary and recover the amount so paid from the landlord. ( 13 ) FOR the above reasons, the petition succeeds and is allowed, subject to the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .