( 1 ) THIS revision petition is by the landlord against the order passed by the V Addl. I Munsiff, Bangalore in HRC. No. 1024 of 1968 made under s. 43 of the Mysore Kent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) THE respondent is the tenant of the suit premises, whose landlord is the petitioner. The respondent filed an application under S. 43 of the Act praying for an order directing the petitioner to restore the water supply and also to restore possession of kitchen, bath room and latrine. The case of the respondent is that he has taken the premises from the former owner one Sathyanarayana Setty about' 7 years back on a monthly rental of Rs. 20, that the rental of Rs. 25 is inclusive of water charges, that the petitioner has purchased the premises from Sathyararayana setty on the 24th of January, 1968, that the premises leased to the respondent which is on the second fioor of the building, consists of one hall, one room, kitchen and a bath room with latrine attached, and that the petitioner has without just and sufficient cause cut off the water supply to the premises and took forcible possession of the kitchen, the bath room and the latrine. The application was resisted by the petitioner, who inter alia contended that the rent of Rs. 25 payable by the respondent is not inclusive of the water charges, that as the respondent, and other tenants did not pay the water charges, the supply was cut off by the Bangalore water Supply and Sewerage Board, for which he is not responsible, that the portion let to the respondent consists of only one room and one kitchen and that there is no hall or both room with latrine attached and that the respondeiit was using the common latrine and common bath room located in the first floor of the building and that he has not taken forcible possession of the kitchen, the bath room and the latrine as alleged by the respondent and that the provisions of S. 43 of the Act are not applicable for securing restoration of possession of the kitchen, bath room and the latrine, as they are not essential services. ( 3 ) THE learned Munsiff, after considering the material placed by the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has, without jusc or sufficient cause, cut off the water supply to the premises and that the petitioner has also taken, forcible possession of the kitchen, the bath room and the latrine and that therefore the petitioner is guilty of withholding essential services without any just or sufficient cause for doing so. The learned Munsiff directed the petitioner to restore water supply to the premises and to restore possession of the kitchen, the bath room and the latrine within 15 days from the date of the order, failing which the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 10 for each day during the period of default till restoration of the amenities. The landlord has challenged the aforesaid order in this revision petition. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted at the outset that he has no grievance against the order of the learned Munsiff in so far as it directs the petitioner to restore water supply to the premises. He, however, submitted that the question as to whether the rent of Rs. 25 of the premises is inclusive of water charges or not be kept open for being decided in an appropriate proceeding. As the learned Counsel for the respondent has no objection for keeping this question open for being adjudicated upon in other appropriate proceeding, it is unnecessary to decide in this case as to whether the rental Rs. 25 is inclusive of water charges or not. ( 5 ) THOUGH the petitioner has taken the stand that the premises leased to the respondent consists of only one hall and one room, the evidence on record fully justifies the conclusion that the premises leased to the respondent included a kitchen, bath room with latrine attached. The finding recorded by the Court below that the petitioner has forcibly taken possession of the kitchen, the bath room and the latrine from the respondent being a proper finding based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, does not call for interference in this revision petition. The finding recorded by the Court below that the petitioner has forcibly taken possession of the kitchen, the bath room and the latrine from the respondent being a proper finding based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, does not call for interference in this revision petition. ( 6 ) THE principal question for consideration in this case is, as to whether the learned Munsiff had jurisdiction to make an order directing the petitioner to restore possession of the kitchen, the bath room and the latrine, in a petition filed by the respondent-tenant under S. 43 of the Act. ( 7 ) THE learned Munsiff has based his conclusion entirely on the decision of this Court in Ulldinkar Rao v. Ratna Bai, 1957 Mys. L. J. 281. That was a case which arose under the provisions of Madras Buildings Lease and rent Control Act, 1949. In that case, this Court, while considering S. 8 of the said Act, came to the conclusion that the expression 'amenities' used in S. 8 of that Act includes a bath room. In the instant case, 1 am required to construe the expression " essential supply or service" and not the expression 'amenities'. The provisions of S. 8 (1) construed in the case of Ullal Dinkar Rao is not analogous to the provisions of S. 43 of the act, with which I am concerned in this case. The decision in Ullal Dinkar roa's case is not of assistance for deciding the question involved in the present case. I have, therefore, to independently construe the provivisions of Section 43 of the Act. ( 8 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of S. 43 of the Act provides that no landlord either himself or through any person acting or purporting to act on his 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. If the landlord contravenes the provisions of sub-sec. (1), the tenant is entitled to make an application under sub-sec. (2) for a direction to restore such supply or service. Sub-sec. (3) provides for an interim order being made during the pendency of the main petition. Sub- sec. If the landlord contravenes the provisions of sub-sec. (1), the tenant is entitled to make an application under sub-sec. (2) for a direction to restore such supply or service. Sub-sec. (3) provides for an interim order being made during the pendency of the main petition. Sub- sec. (4) provides that if the Court on an inquiry finds that the essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of -the building was cut off or withheld by the landlord without just or sufficient cause, it shall make an order directing the landlord to restore such supply or service. If the landlord fails to comply with the directions made under sub-sections (3) or (4), the Court can direct the landlord to pay to the tenant damages not exceeding Rs. 50 for each day for such period of default. Sub-sec. (6) makes the contravention of sub-sec. (1) an offence punishable with fine extending up to five hundred rupees. Sub-sec. (7) gives discretion to the Court to award compensation not exceeding Rs. 100 to be paid to the landlord if the application under sub-sec. (2) was made frivolously or vexatiously and to be paid to the tenant by the landlord if the landlord had cut off or withheld the essential supply or service without just or sufficient cause. Explanation 1 to the section provides that the essential supply or service shall include supply of water, electricity, lights in passages and on staircases, lifts and conservancy or sanitary service. Explanation 2 provides that for the purpose of the 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 authorities or any other competent authority. ( 9 ) IT is clear from sub-sees. (1) and (2) of S. 43 of the Act that-the tenant can seek restoration of essential supply or service enjoyed by him in respect of the building let to him only if the same was cut off or withheld without just or sufficient cause. ( 9 ) IT is clear from sub-sees. (1) and (2) of S. 43 of the Act that-the tenant can seek restoration of essential supply or service enjoyed by him in respect of the building let to him only if the same was cut off or withheld without just or sufficient cause. An order under S. 43 (4) can be made against the landlord if the following conditions are satisfied :- (1) That the tenant enjoyed in respect of the building let to him certain essential supply or service; (2) that the landlord cut off or withheld any such essential supply or service; and (3) that there was no just or sufficient cause for the landlord for cutting off or withholding such essential supply or service. ( 10 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the action of the petitioner in taking forcible possession of the kitchen, the bath room and the latrine from his tenant-respondent does not amount to cutting off or withholding any essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the building let to him. The expression " essential supply or service" has not been exhaustively defined in the Act. Explanation 1 to S. 43 of the Act provides that essential supply or service includes supply of water, electricity, lights in passages and on staircases, lifts and conservancy or sanitary service. It is obviously an inclusive definition and not an exhaustive definition. The second explanation pro- vides that withholding of 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. The second explanation is also not an exhaustive definition but is an inclusive definition. The same is not of much assistance for deciding the question as to whether the facility of a kitchen, bath room and latrine amounts to essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the building let to him. The expression " essential supply or service " in common parlance is not employed for describing the facility of kitchen, bath room and latrine which the tenant enjoys. The expression "essential supply or service" referred to in-sub-sec. (1) is in respect of the building let to the tenant. The expression " essential supply or service " in common parlance is not employed for describing the facility of kitchen, bath room and latrine which the tenant enjoys. The expression "essential supply or service" referred to in-sub-sec. (1) is in respect of the building let to the tenant. It is, therefore, obvious that the essential supply or service contemplated by sub-sec. (1) of S. 43 of the Act is something other than the building let to the tenant. The first explanation to the section, though it does not give an exhaustive definition of the expression "essential supply or service", gives some guidance to decide as to what are the other matters that the said expression may comprehend within it. Having regard to the context in which the expression "essential supply or service" occurs in sub-sec. (1) of S. 43 of the act, it is clear that the same does not include within its ambit, the building or a portion of the building let to the tenant. The said expression only includes facilities other than the building leased to the tenant and not the building or a part of the building itself. Whatever may be the width or ambit of the expression " essential supply or service" used in sub-siec. (1) of S. 43 of the Act, one thing is very clear, viz. , that the same does not include the building or a portion of the building leased to the tenant. ( 11 ) THE Mysore Rent Control Act -was passed with the laudable object of preventing the landlords from exploiting the situation arising out of paucity of accommodation in the State and harassing tenants and other persons in dire need of accommodation. The view I have taken on the construction of S. 43 of the Act being the only view possible on the application of the well-known rules of construction, the harassment of the tenants by the landlords by dispossessing them of the whole or part of the premises remains without being provided with speedy and expeditious remedy under the Act, the tenants being driven to the ordinary mode of litigation for securing possession. This is a matter which can be remedied by the Legislature by suitably amending S. 43 of the Act, providing for restoration of possession of the premises or part of it from which the tenants are unauthorised] y dispossessed. This is a matter which can be remedied by the Legislature by suitably amending S. 43 of the Act, providing for restoration of possession of the premises or part of it from which the tenants are unauthorised] y dispossessed. ( 12 ) THE complaint of the respondent in this case is that the petitioner has forcibly taken possession of a portion of the building leased to him, viz. , the portion consisting of the kitchen, the bath room and the latrine. This does not amount to withholding any essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the building leased to him. The complaint is really to the effect that the landlord has dispossessed him of a portion of the premises leased to him. If the landlord takes forcible possession from the tenant of a portion of the premises leased or of entire premises leased to him, the remedy for restoration of such possession does not lie in filing a petition under s. 43 of the Act. The learned Munsiff has, in my opinion, no jurisdiction to make an order, in a petition filed under S. 43 of the Act, directing the landlord to restore possession of the kitchen, bath room and the latrine, the possession of which the landlord had forcibly taken from his tenant. That portion of the order, being without jurisdiction, has to be set aside. Consequently, the direction issued under sub-sec. (5) of S. 43 of the Act also has to be modified. 12. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed in part and the order passed by the learned Munsiff in so far as it directs delivery of possession of the kitchen, bath room and the latrine to the respondent, is set aside, reserving liberty to the respondent to institute appropriate proceedings for recovery of possession of the same. While affirming the order regarding restoration of water supply, I make it clear that the question as to whether the rent of Rs. 25 is inclusive of water charges or not is kept open for being adjudicated in appropriate proceedings. The direction for payment of Rs. 10 for each day of default in restoring the water supply is set aside, as the water supply has already been restored. No cost. --- *** --- .