JUDGMENT - MOHTA V.A., J.:—(i) Is Clause 14-A of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (The HRC Order) containing power in the Rent Controller to permit the landlord to disconnect the electric and water supply to the premises in occupation of a tenant violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? (ii) Can the said permission be granted because the tenant is in arrears of rent which includes the charges for the electric and water supply? (iii) Is power rightly exercised in the instant case? The above three points fall for determination in this letters patent appeal filed by the tenant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with the permission granted by the Rent Controller and confirmed in appeal by the Collector. 2. Notice before admission was issued. The other side has appeared. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for both the parties we have gone through the record. 3. The factual background is this : (i) In Revenue Case No. 76/A/71(2)/1985-86, the Rent Controller vide order dated 30th November, 1987 held: That the tenant has secured alternate accommodation by constructing his own house and therefore, does not need it, (ii) The landlord needs the house for his bona fide occupation. The permission to terminate the tenancy under Clause 13(3)(v) and (vi) was granted on the basis of those findings and the said order became final. A money decree for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 220/- was granted by the Court of Small Causes against the tenant rejecting the defence that the rent was Rs. 110/- per month and that advance rent upto October 1990 was already paid. The said decree is confirmed in High Court, vide (Civil Revision Application No. 317 of 1984 decided on 26th November, 1985)1. The decree remained unsatisfied. The landlord gave a notice calling upon the tenant to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3,740/- (which includes water and electric charges). 4. The tenant failed to comply with the notice and hence, application under section 14-A of the HRC Order was filed seeking permission to disconnect the two services. The tenant sought adjournments several times to file the reply. It was last granted subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25/-. 3,740/- (which includes water and electric charges). 4. The tenant failed to comply with the notice and hence, application under section 14-A of the HRC Order was filed seeking permission to disconnect the two services. The tenant sought adjournments several times to file the reply. It was last granted subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25/-. The tenant sought review of the order of costs three times, refused to pay costs and did not file the reply. Ultimately, acting on the affidavit of the landlord, the permission sought for was granted (Revenue Case No. 2/A/71(6-A)/87-88 decided on 4th February, 1988)2. The Collector dismissed the Appeal No. 160/A-71(2)/87-88, on 18th February, 1988. The tenant challenged these orders by filing a Writ Petition No. 372 of 1988 which was not entertained, vide order dated 24th February, 1988. Aggrieved thereby, the present Letters Patent Appeal is filed. 5. Point No. 1 is raised for the first time before us during the course of hearing. It was not raised even in the Memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. But as it is a pure question of law, we allowed it to be raised and heard the parties at length. No cogent reasons are given to rebut the presumption of constitutionally. Sole contention urged is that discretion to grant permission under Clause 14-A is unregulated, in the absence of the specifications of the grounds in the clause. The submission does not impress us. By the very nature of things, no exhaustive list of all the circumstances can be given in such cases for instances can be numerous and circumstances varied. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to in what cases the Controller should grant and in what cases he should refuse permission. The HRC Order has a definite object. It is implied that the grounds will have a nexus with the said object. The attack on the constitutional validity of the provision will, therefore have to be repelled. 6. Point No. 2 presents no difficulty whatsoever. Continuous and deliberate non-payment of charges for electricity and water is certainly a ground to grant the required permission. The HRC Order-howsoever liberally it may be construed in favour of a tenant for whose benefit it is made does not contemplate free services. That the charges are not separate and are inclusive in the rent does not change the position. 7. The HRC Order-howsoever liberally it may be construed in favour of a tenant for whose benefit it is made does not contemplate free services. That the charges are not separate and are inclusive in the rent does not change the position. 7. Point No. 3 is essentially factual. Undisputed positions and the conduct of the tenant are already noticed. The fact finding authorities were right in granting the permission and the learned Single Judge was right in refusing to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. 8. The Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of any substance. It is summarily rejected. Appeal dismissed. -----