JUDGMENT RAVI S. DHAVAN, J. 1. A landlord has cut off the basic amenities of his tenant, and deprived the latter of the privy and toilet, and water also. The tenant, the petitioner before this Court, complained to the Prescribed Authority under section 27 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Reg. of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Prescribed Authority, after hearing both, the tenant and the landlord directed by an order of 13th January, 1987 that the aforesaid amenities should be restored within fifteen days of the order aforesaid, failing which the tenant could have these facilities restored at the landlord's expense. 2. Within two days of the order of the Prescribed Authority, the landlord sought the recall of the order dated 13th January, 1987, under section 27 of the Act. The reason, the landlord was seeking the eviction of tenant by an application under section 21 of the Act, for the release of the accommodation. The application of the landlord, by which he resisted the order to restore the amenities is being set on record of the judgment. " In the Court of VI Addl. Munsif/P. A., Kanpur B.C. No. 15/85 Jagat Narain v. Shamboo Dayal Application on behalf of opposite party Sir, In the present case this learned court on 13-1-87 was pleased to allow the petition of petitioners. The opposite party has already filed a petition under section 21 (a) of Act, XIII of 1972 for release of disputed accommodation. In case the order passed in present case is not stayed the same shall cause complication and harassment to the opposite party. As such it is necessary that operation of the order passed on 13-1-87 in the case be stayed till the decision of Act XIII of 1972. Prayer It is, prayed that the learned court be pleased to stay the operation of order dated 13-1-87 passed in the case till the disposal of case of Act No. XIII of 1972. Opposite Party Dated 15-1-87. Shambhoo Dayal " Unfortunately, the Prescribed Authority, by his order dated 2nd February, 1987 recalled the earlier order under section 27, aforesaid, by which the basic amenities were to be restored and provided to the tenant. The purpose of section 27, thus, stood negated. Notices on this writ petition, under the orders of Hon'ble Umesh Chandra, J. were directed to be served personally on the landlord Shambhu Dayal Misra. The purpose of section 27, thus, stood negated. Notices on this writ petition, under the orders of Hon'ble Umesh Chandra, J. were directed to be served personally on the landlord Shambhu Dayal Misra. An affidavit of service has been filed by the petitioner and also his counsel before the Prescribed Authority in Case No. 10/74 of 1987 from which proceedings this writ petition arises. The landlord did not accept the summons of this Court and the copy of the writ petition, so the affidavits of the tenant and his counsel submit. But, the landlord is not without notice of this petition, notwithstanding the fact that he did not accept the summon of this Court and the copy of the writ petition. The landlord is aware of this writ petition. The tenant filed objections before the Prescribed Authority by an affidavit dated 28th February, 1987, in effect, submitting that an order providing for, or restoring basic amenities could not be recalled. In this affidavit the tenant, in paragraph 3 has referred to this writ petition, as also the fact that this Court had directed that the landlord be served with the summons of the Court, personally. This affidavit of the tenant is on record of the case before the Prescribed Authority. A copy of the aforesaid affidavit of the tenant, was served on the counsel for the landlord. The presumption is irresistable that the landlord has notice of this petition from the court of the Prescribed Authority. As this is a matter where basic amenities of the tenant have been cut off, this Court cannot wait for the landlord, except the reasonable time it already has, otherwise the very purpose of section 27, of the Act, aforesaid, ' would be frustrated. 3. A tenant's complaint seeking the enforcement of the landlord's obligations regarding amenities is to be considered with a sense of urgency. That the legislature desired this, is clear from a plain reading of section 27. The amenity is to be restored by the landlord, or cause has to be shown within a week of the notice from the Prescribed Authority The very purpose is that no tenant must be deprived of basic amenities, as the inconvenience is inhuman. 4. There was no occasion for the Prescribed Authority to have recalled the order by which the landlord had been directed to restore the amenities. 4. There was no occasion for the Prescribed Authority to have recalled the order by which the landlord had been directed to restore the amenities. The excuse of the landlord to evade the direction under section 27, to restore the basic amenities, on the ground that he is seeking eviction of the tenant is not a circumstance which can absolve him of his obligations. In fact, the application of the landlord dated 15th January, 1987 by which he resisted a direction under section 27, is prima facie proof on record that, firstly, basic amenities have been cut, and secondly, without cause. The Prescribed Authority made a manifest and a grievous error in leaving the tenant without basic amenities, merely because the landlord's application for the eviction of the tenant, was pending. Notwithstanding that an application under section 21 of the Act for the eviction of the tenant, or an appeal of the tenant or landlord under section 22 may be pending, this cannot relieve the landlord of his obligations under Section 27 to provide the amenities. It is only when the order of eviction of a tenant becomes final from the court of last resort that the tenant may not have the locus standi to move an application for the enforcement of landlords' obligations regarding amenities. 5. The order of the Prescribed Authority of 2nd April, 1987 reviewing the earlier order by which the landlord had been required to carry out his obligations under Section 27 is illegal. Instead of enforcing strict compliance of the order of 13th January, 1987 ensuring that the amenities are restored to the tenant, the Prescribed Authority in effect, left the tenant without a privy, toilet and water. There are basic human needs, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to set at naught the earlier order by which the landlord had to provide the amenities, failing which the tenant could have the amenities in question restored at the landlord's expense. In fact, the order of 13th January, 1987, in the operative portion contains an error and is not in conformity with sub-clause (1) of section 27. The aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority, dated 13th January, 1987, gives the landlord 15 days' to restore the amenities which the tenant had been deprived of. In fact, the order of 13th January, 1987, in the operative portion contains an error and is not in conformity with sub-clause (1) of section 27. The aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority, dated 13th January, 1987, gives the landlord 15 days' to restore the amenities which the tenant had been deprived of. When the Prescribed Authority was satisfied that the landlord had without cause deprived the tenant of the amenities, which he had hitherto enjoyed then the direction to the landlord to restore the amenities should have mentioned the period as one week and not 15 days. The expression used in sub-section (1) of section 27, in effect, stipulates that the landlord will receive a direction from the Prescribed Authority to restore the amenities within a period, which does not exceed one week. It is the intention of the Act aforesaid, that the direction to restore the amenities must be complied with expeditiously so that a tenant is not inconvenienced for want of basic amenities without which living is a suffering. 6. Upon the landlord seeking, and the Prescribed Authority granting the request, the amenities of the tenant in the present case are contingent upon the success of the section 21 application, In fact it is for this reason that the Prescribed Authority recalled his earlier order of 15th January, 1987 under which the landlord was to restore the amenities to the tenant. The process of the court in proceedings under Section 21 has, thus, been misutilised and abused by the landlord. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India mus remedy the situation. The order of the Prescribed Authority dated 2nd February, 1987 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) in re proceedings under Section 27, aforesaid, is quashed. Within three days of a certified copy of the order of this Court being placed before the Prescribed Authority, in case No. 15 of 1985 : Jagat Narain Dwivedi v. Shambhu Dayal Misra, a fresh direction will be issued from the court of the Prescribed Authority that the amenities which the landlord was to restore in pursuance of the order dated 13th Jan., 1987, shall be provided within one week. Unless the amenities have been restored by the landlord, and the Prescribed Authority has ensured that it has been done, further proceedings arising out of Section 21 of the Act, aforesaid, in Rent Case No. 35 of 1986, Shambu Dayal Misra v. Jagat Narain Dwivedi pending before the Prescribed Authority/VIII Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur shall remain in abeyance. The tenant, petitioner before this Court, has unnecessarily been harassed and deprived of the basic amenities by the landlord, and had to plead before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek redress. The petitioner is entitled to costs on this petition which shall stand at Rs. 150/-. As the section 21 application of the landlord for the eviction of the tenant, was made on excuse for justifying the denial of the amenities, the costs awarded by this Court will be deposited before the Court of the Prescribed Authority hearing the application under Section 21, aforesaid. When the costs have been deposited by the landlord then the matter under Section 21 aforesaid will proceed on merits. 7. In view of the observations and the directions given in this order, the writ petition is allowed with costs, as indicated. 8. A certified copy of this order may be delivered to the learned counsel for the petitioner on 20th April, 1987.