JUDGMENT RAVI S. DHAVAN, J. 1. There is a lodging house in a substantial portion of a building situate at 100/487 Colonelganj, Gadaria, Kanpur. The owner is one Dwarika Prasad Pal, the petitioner. On the second floor resides the petitioner with his family in a self contained apartment. On the first floor are four tenants each with a separate room. Likewise on the ground floor are also four tenants. Between these set of tenants on the first floor and the ground floor is shared a common privy and toilet. Inevitably this implies that the tenants on the first floor must come down to use the privy and the toilet. 2. One of the tenants of the first floor was irked by this inconvenience i. e. respondent no. 2 Mahesh Prasad. This Mahesh Prasad respondent no. 2, moved the Prescribed Authority under Section 21 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 bringing to his notice that the amenity of a toilet and privy was grossly inadequate and that the landlord, the petitioner, be required to restore this amenity on the first floor failing which he should be permitted to instal this amenity at the cost of the landlord. The application of respondent no. 2 the tenant is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 3. Respondent no. 2 contended in his application that the pressure on the solitary privy and toilet on the ground floor for all the tenants on the first floor and the ground floor is, too much, and this inconvenience of the tenants affects their privacy. This respondent avers in his application before the Prescribed Authority that between the tenants and their families 48 persons use one privy on the ground floor. This includes the family of the landlord, seven in number. Thus this respondent contends that on the first floor there was a privy till 2nd May 1985 but this was closed by the landlord when he deliberately damaged it by putting it into disuse so that it could be converted into a small room for letting. The landlord filed objections before the Prescribed Authority in effect taking the plea that there was no privy or toilet on the first floor. Thus the question of not providing any facility on the first floor does not arise. The petitioner further contended in his objections that the respondent no. The landlord filed objections before the Prescribed Authority in effect taking the plea that there was no privy or toilet on the first floor. Thus the question of not providing any facility on the first floor does not arise. The petitioner further contended in his objections that the respondent no. 2, as tenant, has retaliated because he had been required by a formal notice on 21st April 1985 to vacate the premises consequent upon the fact that the petitioner had purchased it and required it for his own use. As a counterblast, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 filed an application before the Prescribed Authority under Section 27 of the Act aforesaid that the amenity of a toilet and privy had been denied. 4. The Prescribed Authority issued a commission for the inspection of this house which lodges tenants on the ground floor and the first floor and to report to his Court on the adequacy or the inadequacy of the convenience of a privy and toilet for tenants. On the day when the commission was carried out, the petitioner-landlord was not present. The Prescribed Authority records in his order that his wife, on the other hand, was around when the commission was being executed. The Commissioner reported to the Court that as on date of the inspection between the first floor and the ground floor tenants, there was only one privy and toilet and that also on the ground floor. The Commissioner further placed on record that right above the ground floor privy and toilet was a small room in which there used to be a toilet and it had been damaged beyond use and the door was removed and instead of a cloth curtain had been hung. In the present writ petition, the petitioner landlord assails the order of the Prescribed Authority by which he has virtually been asked to restore the amenity. The petitioner submits that the order of the Prescribed Authority suffers from errors apparent on the record as his objections against the Commissioner's report have not been considered and ought to have been considered. It is contended that there has been no violation of Section 27 of the Act. It is further asserted on behalf of the petitioner that had the objections been noticed then the application of respondent no. It is contended that there has been no violation of Section 27 of the Act. It is further asserted on behalf of the petitioner that had the objections been noticed then the application of respondent no. 2 under section 27, would be rejected as the petitioner has neither cut off any amenity nor withheld or reduced it. 5. This Court finds it difficult to agree with the petitioner. The inconvenience caused to the tenants in a lodging house by the denial of a basic amenity like a toilet or a privy or a latrine is one of degree. The inconvenience would have to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. Even if the contention of the petitioner were to be taken at its face value, that is to say, that the first floor never had a latrine, yet it is difficult for this court to agree within him that the Prescribed Authority has radically gone wrong in asking him to make arrangements, now. A toilet or a privy or a latrine is a basic human need and a lodging house without it is a veritable hovel. More than 40 persons share a common privy and the contention of the petitioner is that they must continue to do so. One of the obligations of keeping a tenant is that the landlord must at least provide a basic need or an amenity to a tenant. A privy or a toilet is a basic need, amongst a few others. Notwithstanding that the petitioner landlord may not have reduced any amenity of a privy, though such is not the case, but, requiring almost 40 persons to use only one, is a reduced amenity. The expression ‘reduced’ as found in Section 26 may not be misunderstood to mean, in the context of the present case if two privies were reduced to one. The expression in the context implies that where the pressure of an amenity is so much that it is inconvenient to use it, it will amount to a reduced amenity and partakes the nature of an amenity denied. 6. Economic necessities and shortages of tenements in the urban areas force many people to seek cheap lodging houses. This is not to say that economic compulsions do not also force landlords to seek tenants, as without them a lodging house itself may not be sustained. 6. Economic necessities and shortages of tenements in the urban areas force many people to seek cheap lodging houses. This is not to say that economic compulsions do not also force landlords to seek tenants, as without them a lodging house itself may not be sustained. Thus, at times, both classes of persons looking for cheap tenements and owners of building by economic necessities yearn for tenants. But this apart, in such lodging houses there can hardly be an issue that an amenity, a privy or a toilet or a latrine is not a basic human need. Deprivation of such an amenity degrades human dignity. This Court feels that when the Prescribed Authority required the petitioner landlord that he must provide or restore the amenity of a privy or a toilet on the first floor of his accommodation for the convenience of the tenants on this floor, this direction suffers no illegality or any manifest error which would occasion interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly this petition must be dismissed. As no notices have been issued to the respondents, so arrayed, thus there will be no order on costs. 7. After the aforesaid observations were dictated in court, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he acquiesces to the decision of the Court and requested that the Court may extend the time for implementing the order of the Prescribed Authority which had been impugned. This request on behalf of the petitioner can be considered. Accordingly this Court permits the petitioner to comply with the orders of the Prescribed Authority dated 24th January 1987 within one month from today. Petition dismissed.