JUDGMENT Gulati, J. - The petitioner is a tenant in a portion of House No 108/126 Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur. This accommodation is on the first floor. It appears that the landlord added a second storey to his building and in order to supply water to the tenants of the second floor he constructed a reservoir on the ground floor from which water is pumped to the second floor by means of an electric motor. As a result of this, the supply of water to the first floor where the petitioner resides might have been diminished. The petitioner complained about inadequate supply of water and ultimately moved an application under Section 26 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for the restoration of the water supply to him. This application was rejected in the following words : "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. At best, it can be said that the landlord has reduced the water supply by opening the tap on the ground floor continuously because it is not the case of the applicant that landlord has withheld or cut off pipe connection. The intention of the landlord is that several other tenants use ground floor tap and he cannot restrain them from taking water at the times stated by the petitioner. No injunction order can be issued in this case against the landlord. From the evidence on record it is not proved that the landlord has wilfully diminished the Water supply........." 2. Sub-section (1) of section 26 of the Act provides : "No landlord shall without lawful authority or excuse cut off, withhold or reduce any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant." Now assuming in the instant case that the supply of water to the petitioner has been reduced as a result of the construction of reservoir on the ground floor the same, in my opinion, cannot be said to be without a lawful excuse. The excuse is valid and bona fide inasmuch as in order to supply water to the tenants of the second floor the landlord had to construct the reservoir on the ground floor from where the water is pumped up through an electric motor. It cannot be said that the landlord was not justified in taking such a step. The excuse is valid and bona fide inasmuch as in order to supply water to the tenants of the second floor the landlord had to construct the reservoir on the ground floor from where the water is pumped up through an electric motor. It cannot be said that the landlord was not justified in taking such a step. If as a result of this step the water supply to the petitioner is reduced the same is for a lawful excuse. As has been rightly pointed out by the Prescribed Authority if the petitioner thinks that his water supply is inadequate he can ask for a fresh connection for himself. Under the Law the landlord cannot be compelled to disconnect the water supply to the tenants of the second fluor in order to ensure adequate supply to the petitioner. At the same time it must be remarked that the landlord should not deprive the petitioner altogether of the water supply. As suggested by the petitioner it would be reasonable if during certain house of the day and night the tap on she ground floor is closed so that the water can reach the first floor. If the landlord keeps the tap on the ground floor open all the 24 hours. it is likely that the petitioner's water supply may be interrupted altogether. This the landlord is not permitted to do. 3. With the above observations this petition fails and is dismissed, I however, make no order as to costs.