Judgement Petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 13-5-91 passed by the Ist Assistant District Judge, Guwahati in Misc. Appeal No. 3 of 1984 against the order passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 273/83 arising out of Title Suit No. 283 of 1983 of the Court of the Sadar Munsiff, Guwahati. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are tenants under the opposite party in respect of two flats numbering 12 and 17 in the upper floor of a building known as "Sharma Sadan" at Tokobari By-lane, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati. Under the terms of the tenancy they and other tenants used to get regular and uninterrupted supply of water into their respective flats. The opposite party had been making various attempts to oust the petitioners and other tenants. The opposite party also with an ulterior motive to drive away the petitioners from the demised flats. In violation of the terms of the tenancy and contrary to the provisions of law disconnected the supply of water to their respective flats on 24-9-83. The petitioners as plaintiffs filed a Suit (T.S. 283/83) in the Court of the Sadar Munsiff, Guwahati for declaration that the petitioners-plaintiffs are entitled to uninterrupted and regular supply of water and other essential services to their demised flats. In the said suit the petitioners also prayed for temporary injunction directing the opposite party-defendant to restore water supply to the flats of the petitioners as per terms of tenancy and also to maintain other essential supplies. The Munsiff by order dated 19-11-83 granted an ad interim injunction directing the defendant (opposite party) to restore the water supply to the plaintiffs flats. Notices were issued to the opposite party and they appeared in the suit. Thereafter the Munsif after hearing both sides by order dated 21-12-83 vacated the order of ad interim injunction earlier granted. While vacating the order the Munsiff observed that the opposite party had not actually disconnected the supply of water on 24-9-83. Stoppage of supply of water was due to break down of pump set and that the opposite party had already made alternative arrangement and the 14 families in the building were taking water therefrom and in that view ad interim injunction earlier granted was vacated. Against that the plaintiffs-petitioners preferred an appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 3/84) in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Guwahati. Learned Asstt. Against that the plaintiffs-petitioners preferred an appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 3/84) in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Guwahati. Learned Asstt. District Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal observing as follows :- "........Where there is a way for getting relief of such nature by different proceeding, a plaintiff cannot ask for the relief of injunction. S. 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act has provided that an injunction cannot be granted when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any usual mode or other proceeding except in case of breach of trust. The appellants can have equally efficacious relief of getting water supply restored to by taking the aid of S. 7 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. The appellants are accordingly not entitled to get the relief of injunction in this particular case." Against the said appellate order dated 15-3-84 passed by the Assistant District Judge, the petitioners filed a Civil Revision (Civil Revision No. 121/84). This Court after considering all aspects of the matter allowed the revision petition and the appeal was remanded to the Ist Assistant District Judge, Guwahati to decide the appeal in the light of the decision of this Court in cases reported in (1983) 1 GLR 443 (M/s. Ram Chandra Bhagwan Das, represented by Shri Bhagwan Das Agarwalla v. Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwalla) and 1982 GHC 69 (M/s. Santosh Kumar Krishna Kumar v. M/s Misrilal Nirmalkumar). This Court also directed that as the petitioners ware suffering due to non-maintenance of existing essential supply, namely, water supply, the appeal should be disposed by the Assistant District Judge within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the records. After receipt of the appeal on remand, the Ist Assistant District Judge, Guwahati, once again dismissed the appeal holding that the allegation of disconnection of water supply was not correct. The Assistant District Judge further held that the supply of water was made by an alternative arrangement. Besides the Assistant District Judge held that whether the alternative arrangement made by the apposite party was in the same way was to be decided in the main suit. The Assistant District Judge further held that the supply of water was made by an alternative arrangement. Besides the Assistant District Judge held that whether the alternative arrangement made by the apposite party was in the same way was to be decided in the main suit. The Court further held that restoration of water supply by replacing the pumping machine in the form of interim injunction, if granted, there would be no question to go for the suit as such an order would amount to a decree and therefore, it dismissed the appeal. Hence the present petition. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. It is not disputed that the provision for water supply was in existence in the demised premises. It is admitted that water is one of the essential supplies. Besides, it is not disputed that the supply of water to the demised premises was one of the conditions of the tenancy. The case of the opposite party-landlord is that the supply of water was not disconnected by the landlord. The supply was disrupted because of damage of the water pump which was not in a repairable state at the time of institution of the suit. However, the opposite party made an alternative arrangement for supply of water to the tenants of the said building by getting a Municipal water tap installed on the ground floor of the building. The opposite party further stated, as an alternative arrangement was made providing water on the ground floor from Municipal water tap there was no necessity of replacing the pump set or repairing it. On the other hand, the petitioners case is that the supply of water to the demised premises was a condition of tenancy and there cannot be any breach of such condition during the continuance of the tenancy. According to the petitioners the stoppage of supply of water to the demised premises and also to other tenants was nothing but a ruse to drive out the tenants with an ulterior motive. 5. The Ist Assistant District Judge in his impugned judgment observed that petitioners being tenants were entitled to essential services like electricity and water supply to the demised premises. 5. The Ist Assistant District Judge in his impugned judgment observed that petitioners being tenants were entitled to essential services like electricity and water supply to the demised premises. Under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, duty is cast on the landlord to maintain the existing essential supplies and services like water supply and electricity to the demised premises and in case the landlord neglects to maintain the existing essential supplies the tenant has right under the Act to file application for necessary redress. 6. Now the question that falls for determination is whether the opposite party-landlord is under obligation to make supply of water to the demised flats during the continuance of tenancy and whether the alternative arrangement as made by the landlord opposite party can discharge the landlords obligation as claimed. 7. While dismissing the appeal, the learned Assistant District Judge held as follows :- "In this circumstances, the plea that there was disconnection of water supply is not at all true. The supply of water is made by alternative arrangement. Whether the arrangement must be in the same way is a question to be decided in the suit and that decision can be given in the suit. But for the purpose of injunction there is no disconnection rather an alternative arrangement is available. Hence, the prayer for restoration of water supply by replacing the pumping machine in the form of injunction be granted then, there is no question to go for the suit as such order would amount to a decree." 8. Admittedly the water was supplied to the demised premises at the time of creation of the tenancy and it continued thereafter. But such supply was stopped or discontinued before filing of the present suit. Dispute is that the pump set broke down and the landlord was not under any obligation to replace or repair the same without considering landlords earning capacity. 9. The appellate Court while deciding the injunction matter hastened to come to the conclusion that there was no disconnection of supply of water. Dispute is that the pump set broke down and the landlord was not under any obligation to replace or repair the same without considering landlords earning capacity. 9. The appellate Court while deciding the injunction matter hastened to come to the conclusion that there was no disconnection of supply of water. The stoppage of supply of water to the demised flats was due to the break down of the pump set which was beyond repair and whether the landlord is under obligation to repair or replace the pump set is a matter to be decided at the trial and, therefore, according to him the opposite party-landlord cannot be compelled to replace a pump set without considering the financial capability of the landlord-opposite party. Water being an essential item in day to day life, unless an immediate action is taken the balance of convenience will be against the petitioners-tenants and they would suffer irreparable loss. The alternative arrangement stated to have been made by the landlord for collection of water on the ground floor cannot be said to be an alternative arrangement inasmuch as the petitioners-tenants would have to carry water from the ground floor to the upper floors which would not at all be convenient. The landlord cannot shirk his responsibility by simply saying that the pump set went out of order and beyond repair. It is the duty of the landlord to see that the essential supplies are not disrupted and if such thing happens it will be the bounden duty of the landlord to make good of it either by repairing the pump set or by replacing it. In this regard the cost is not a very material factor. There are provisions under the Act for realisation of fair rent. If the rent is inadequate, landlord definitely can take steps for raising the rent. The allegation of the petitioners-tenants is that the landlord is putting indirect pressure on the tenants by discontinuing the supply of water. In fact, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that some of the tenants have already left because of the hardship faced and the petitioners having no other alternative is still continuing their occupation as tenants and the landlord is waiting to see how long the petitioners can endure the indirect pressure. 10. In fact, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that some of the tenants have already left because of the hardship faced and the petitioners having no other alternative is still continuing their occupation as tenants and the landlord is waiting to see how long the petitioners can endure the indirect pressure. 10. This Court in Santosh Kumar Krishna Kumar v. Misrilal Nirmalkumar, 1982 GHC 69 dealt with a similar type of matter where the supply of electricity was disconnected. A suit was filed and on application an ad-interim ex parte mandatory injunction to restore the electric connection was issued by the trial Court. The appellate Court upheld the order. Landlord filed a revision before this Court invoking the power under S. 115 of the CPC. This Court held that electricity is an essential item. While approving the decisions of the Courts below this Court held that when the need was urgent, the process of the Court should respond quickly to ensure justice. This Court also held that disconnection of a tenants electric energy was not merely a wrong but a wrong of grievous nature and in such cases the Court should issue injunction. Similarly, in Ram Chandra Bhagwan Das represented by Shri Bhagwan Das Agarwala v. Pawan Kumar Agarwalla, (1983) 1 GLR 443 this. Court held that there is no bar under S. 39 of the Specific Relief Act for granting mandatory injunction. On the other hand, it provides, to prevent breach of obligation and also to compel performance of a requisite act, the Court in its discretion may grant injunction. It was also held that in a case of this nature a mandatory temporary injunction can be granted to restore the supply of essential services like water supply and electricity. 11. Considering all those facts stated above, I hold that the Courts below acted without jurisdiction by refusing to grant injunction. Under the facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that it is a fit case to grant injunction directing the respondent to restore the supply of water immediately to the tenanted premises. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Prayer for temporary injunction directing the opposite party to restore supply of water in the demised premises is granted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.