JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J. (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order of the Court of Shri R. C. Sharma, Rent Controller, Shimla dated 20th May, 1996 whereby the interim application moved by the respondent (tenant) has been allowed and the petitioner (landlord) has been directed to restore forthwith the water supply to the respondent. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent moved an application under, Section 11(3) of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (here in after to be called the Act) against the petitioner Hari Krishan (landlord) for restoration of essential supply. It was alleged therein that the respondent is a tenant in the residential premises consisting of one room set in the ground floor of Godawari Niwas, Lama Village, Kaithu of which the petitioner is the landlord. It was further alleged therein that the petitioner/landlord illegally removed and cut off the water supply of the respondent due to which he was suffering hardship. The respondent also moved an application for immediate restoration of water supply till the disposal of the main petition. It is that interim application which has been disposed of by the impugned order. 3. The petitioner filed reply to the main petition as well as the interim application in which the allegations of the respondent were denied. It was specifically denied that any water supply has been cut off by the petitioner. On the other hand, it was alleged that there was no water supply provided to the premises of the tenant. It was further averred that the respondent used to fetch water from nearby source since the beginning of his tenancy. It was alleged that the application had been moved to harass the petitioner. 4. On behalf of the respondent a rough site plan showing the old water tap which was existing near the premises inquestion occupied by him was produced. He also placed on record the photographs of the water pipe which existed on the spot and from which he used to fetch the water. The application of the respondent was duly sic by an affidavit in which it was specifically averred that the petitioner has cut off his water supply due to which he is facing great hardship. On the other hand, the petitioner has not supported his reply by an affidavit. 5. The application of the respondent was duly sic by an affidavit in which it was specifically averred that the petitioner has cut off his water supply due to which he is facing great hardship. On the other hand, the petitioner has not supported his reply by an affidavit. 5. After considering the pleadings of the parties as propounded by their learned counsel, the trial Court came to the conclusion that it cannot be disputed that water supply is an essential service without which a tenant suffers great hardship in the enjoyment of tenanted premises. It has further been held that it was the legal duty of the petitioner being the landlord to have prevented his brother from closing down the tap or else to have provided alternative water supply to the respondent/tenant. Hence the impugned order. 6. None appears on behalf of the petitioner although the case has been called twice and attempts were also made to locate the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri B. S. Ranjan in the Bar Room which proved futile, so the learned counsel for the respondent has been heard. 7. There can be no dispute with the finding given by the learned Court below that water supply is an essential service without which a tenant suffers 1 great hardship in the enjoyment of tenanted premises, which is legally sound. 1 It is hereby affirmed. Needless to add that without there being essential services like power and water supply in the tenanted premises, a tenant cannot enjoy the said premises to his benefit and for his convenience. In the absence of both or either of them great hardship is caused to the occupant any one can go to the extent of saying that it is impossible to stay in a premises which is either without power or water supply or both. 8. Out of the various grounds taken in the revision petition, at the time of admission only one was urged and pressed on behalf of the petitioner. The same is that oral requests were made to the learned Rent Controller by the petitioner for making spot inspection of the premises so that the allegations regarding existence of the earlier water connection in the premises of the respondent were verified, but such prayer did not find any favour with the Rent Controller. The same is that oral requests were made to the learned Rent Controller by the petitioner for making spot inspection of the premises so that the allegations regarding existence of the earlier water connection in the premises of the respondent were verified, but such prayer did not find any favour with the Rent Controller. In the absence of the inspection no effective decision can be given by him, therefore the impugned order has been passed with material irregularity and injustice has been done to the petitioner. 9. There is nothing on record to show that any such request was made. Merely on the ipse dixit of the petitioner it cannot be said that a prayer for spot inspection was made. Proper thing for the landlord would have been to move appropriate application in this behalf and this was admittedly not done. Moreover, it has been urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that no such prayer was made before the learned Rent Controller. In the absence of any rebuttal or denial on behalf of the petitioner, which remains un-rebutted as stated above, this statement is deemed to be correct and has to be accepted. 10. At this stage, Shri B. S. Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner has put in appearance and he has re-iterated the above submission regarding not having inspected the spot by the Rent Controller and that, according to him, has resulted in material irregularity and the impugned order on the basis of the same is liable to be set aside as it has caused injustice to the petitioner. This argument is rejected for the reasons already indicated above. 11. Although a number of other issues have been taken in the revision petition but they are without any basis or force. 12. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is dismissed. But in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. The parties, through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller, Shimla on 27.3.1997. The record summoned from the Rent Controller be despatched forthwith by the Registry. 13. At this stage, Shri B. S. Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction may be given to the Rent Controller to inspect the spot and then pass an appropriate order on the application of the tenant respondent. The record summoned from the Rent Controller be despatched forthwith by the Registry. 13. At this stage, Shri B. S. Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction may be given to the Rent Controller to inspect the spot and then pass an appropriate order on the application of the tenant respondent. In the interest of justice, it is observed that it will be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application in this behalf before the Rent Controller who will decide the same on merits in accordance with law. -