ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition arises out of 5 the proceedings under S. 27 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 2. The facts, in brief, are these. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent No. 2 is the landlady. The petitioner moved an application under S. 27 of the Act complaining in para No. 6 of the application as under "That on 16-4-1976 the opposite party forcibly without the consent of the applicant, in his absence dispossessed the applicant and allowed Sri Abdul Jabbar whom she styles as her licencee, thus the O. P. has withheld the free passage for entrance and exit and for his sweepers to clean the gutter and pick up rubbish etc. Thus the O. P. has contravened the provisions of Section 26 of Act XIII of 1972." A map was appended to the said application and a true copy of the said application is Annexure 1 to the petition. A true copy of the aforesaid map attached to the said application is Annexure 1-A to the petition. A Commissioner was appointed in the case and he submitted his report dated 3-7-76. a true copy of which is Annexure 2 to the petition. The application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by its impugned order dated 17-7-79 and a certified copy of the same is Annexure 3 to the petition. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri S. A. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and in opposition, Sri S. A. Khan, learned counsel for the landlady has made his submission. 4. In my view, this petition is not maintainable on the short ground that what the petitioner was really alleging, was his dispossession from a portion in his tenancy. This is absolutely clear from the statement made in para 1 of his application, under S. 27 of the Act and from the map Annexure 1-A to the petition. It was not the loss of amenity but the loss of a portion of the accommodation in his tenancy. There can be little doubt that there is a clear distinction between the loss of the portion of a tenanted accommodation and the deprivation of a mere amenity enjoyed by a tenant in the portion in his tenancy. It was not the loss of amenity but the loss of a portion of the accommodation in his tenancy. There can be little doubt that there is a clear distinction between the loss of the portion of a tenanted accommodation and the deprivation of a mere amenity enjoyed by a tenant in the portion in his tenancy. The amenity is for a better enjoyment of the accommodation in the tenancy of a tenant, for example, electricity, or water-supply in the tenanted accommodation are clear instances of amenities enjoyed by a tenant. The learned counsel contended that even though the Civil Court would be a proper forum for getting back the possession of the portion forcibly taken away from a tenant, still, the tenant could claim a lesser relief in the shape of free access of the sweeper to the disputed portion in question. In my view, this contention cannot be accepted. It is not a question of granting lesser or higher relief, the question is whether as a part of contract of the tenancy, the tenant had been given a benefit of mere amenity in the portion let out to him or some accommodation itself had been made a part of his tenancy. If some portion is alleged to be a part of his tenancy and it is further alleged that a tenant had been dispossessed from the same, it is not open to the tenant to say that instead of giving back possession of such portion to him, he should be granted the lesser relief by way of amenity. This course is legally not permissible. 5. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.