Mohd. Shamim ( 1 ) AN application by plaintiffs under Section 151 of thecode of Civil Procedure for permission to dig up a tubewell/borewell of sufficientdepth in the backyard of the suit premises at their own expense for their exclusiveuse and enjoyment. They further want through the present application to allow theplaintiffs to put their exclusive use two overhead water tanks out of the fouroverhead water tanks for their own exclusive use and enjoyment and for supplyingthe water on the first floor i. e. the tenanted accommodation in occupation of theplaintiffs. ( 2 ). A few facts for the proper appreciation of the points in controversy before thiscourt are as under: that the plaintiffs are the tenants of defendant No. 1 on the firstfloor of property bearing No. D-l 059, New Friends Colony, New Delhi since 1980 ona monthly rent of Rs. 2,530. 00. Defendant No. 1 in collusion with defendant No. 2 arebringing pressure on the plaintiffs in different ways in order to compel them tovacate the tenanted accommodation. Hence, the plaintiffs are compelled to institutethe present suit. The water supply to the tenanted accommodation in occupation ofthe plaintiffs is through a tubewell installed in the backyard of the building. A jetpump is installed on the tubewell which pumps the water to the overhead watertankon the terrace floor. There is no MCD supply of water in the said premises and thetubewell is the only source of feeding. There is not enough supply of water throughthe Municipal line even to the first floor. Theplaintiffs assuch are wholly dependenton the tubewell for the supply of water to their premises for all their needs. Theplaintiffs are experiencing acute shortage of water since the jet pump quite often failsto pump water to the overhead tanks due to the decrease in water level. Defendantno. 2 who is in occupation of the ground floor wants to oust the plaintiffs byintimidating and harassing them. The plaintiffs thus pray that they should beallowed to instal a tubewell in the backyard of the suit premises attheir own expenseand for their own exclusive use. The application is supported by an affidavit. ( 3 ). The above application has been opposed by defendant No. 2 inter cilia on thefollowing grounds: that the present application is not maintainable inasmuch as thepremises insuit are governed by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The application is supported by an affidavit. ( 3 ). The above application has been opposed by defendant No. 2 inter cilia on thefollowing grounds: that the present application is not maintainable inasmuch as thepremises insuit are governed by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Thus,the reliefs sought through the present application could only be sought through apetition under Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act i. e. from the Rent Controller. Thus the present application could have been moved only before the Rent Controller,provisions of Section 151, Civil Procedure Code whereunder the present application has beenmoved, could not come to the rescue of the plain tiffs inasmuch as there is a specificprovision under Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act whereunder the presentapplication could have been presented to the Rent Controller. It is false and preposterous that there is no adequate water supply to the tenanted accommodationof the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs cannot be permitted to instal a tubewell on the groundfloor which is in occupation of defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs should confinethemselves to their own tenanted premises. They cannot be permitted to utilise a partof the accommodation which docs not form part of their tenanted accommodation. The application is thus liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ). Learned Counsel for defendant No. 1 has opposed the application orally. According to the learned Counsel for defendant No. 1, the defendant has assuredadequate water supply to the tenanted accommodation of the plaintiff. The applicationis thus liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ). 1 have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at sufficient length andhave very carefully examined their rival contentions and have given my anxiousthought thereto. ( 6 ). Mr. Sanghi, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs has contended that relief inquestion could not be made available to the plaintiffs by the Rent Controllerinasmuch as the relief which is being claimed is against defendant No. 2 also who isnot the landlord of the plaintiffs. Hence, according to the learned Counsel, theprovisions of Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act would not come into operationin the instant case. ( 7 ). Since we are concerned with the construction of Section 45 of the Delhi Rentcontrol Act, it would be just and proper to examine the said section beforeproceeding any further in the matter. It is in the following words : 45. ( 7 ). Since we are concerned with the construction of Section 45 of the Delhi Rentcontrol Act, it would be just and proper to examine the said section beforeproceeding any further in the matter. It is in the following words : 45. Cutting off or withholding essential supply or service- (1) No landlord eitherhimself or through any person purporting to act on his behalf shall without justand sufficient cause cut off or withhold any essential supply or service enjoyedby the tenant in respect of the premises let to him. (2) If a landlord contravenes the provisions of Sub-section (1) the tenant maymake an application to the Controller complaining of such contravention. (3) If the Controller is satisfied that the essential supply or service was cutoffor withheld by the landlord with a view to compel the tenant to vacate thepremises or to pay an enhanced rent, the Controller may pass an order directingthe landlord to restore the amenities immediately, pending the inquiry referredto in Sub-section (4 ). Explanation. . . . . . . . . . . . . (4 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 8 ). A close scrutiny of the relevant provisions of law adverted to above revealsthat the above section is applicable to those discerning few cases whereas thelandlord has deprived the tenant of the essential supply or service enjoyed by thetenant in respect of the tenanted accommodation. ( 9 ). The plaintiffs herein, admittedly, are complaining of the shortage of thewater supply. The said supply admittedly relates to their own tenantedaccommodation. Their grievance is also against the landlord. According to them,defendant No. 1, admittedly who is the landlord, in collusion with defendant No. 2is not allowing the sufficient water supply to the tenantedaccommodation of theplaintiff with a view to bringing pressure on them to vacate the premises in suit. Thusit is crystal clear that the grievance is against defendant No. 1 in collusion withdefendant No. 2 as is fully manifest from para 2 of the application. The provisionsof Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act are quite explicit and amply clear on thispoint. Thusit is crystal clear that the grievance is against defendant No. 1 in collusion withdefendant No. 2 as is fully manifest from para 2 of the application. The provisionsof Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act are quite explicit and amply clear on thispoint. It lays down that no landlord either himself or through any person purportingto act on his behalf shall without just and sufficient cause cut off or withhold anyessential supply. According to para 2 of the application under disposal, defendantno. 1 is doing so in collusion with defendant No. 2. ( 10 ). Hence, the provisions of Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act are fullyapplicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the present application, is notmaintainable. ( 11 ). The ground floor is admittedly in occupation of defendant No. 2. Thus I feelthe plaintiffs cannot be permitted to use any other portion of the building which doesnot fall within the domain of their tenanted accommodation without express consentor permission of the person who is in occupation thereof. So far as the ground flooris concerned, the plaintiffs are strangers to the said part of the building. They cannotbe permitted to use any portion thereof without the permission of defendant No. 2who is in occupation thereof. ( 12 ). Furthermore, the orderwith regard to the installation of the tubewell cannotbe secured by the plaintiffs in their favour simply on the bare allegations in theirapplication which have been denied and controverted by the defendants in theirreply. The plaintiffs have not placed on record even tiny piece of paper to show thatthey are entitled to do so such as agreement in between them and the defendants. ( 13 ). There is another side of the picture. The plaintiffs have moved the presentapplication under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code The provisions of the said section can be madeuse of only in exceptional cases where there is no clear cut provisions of law on thepoint. It has been held above that Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act isspecifically applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the present applicationis not maintainable on this score also. ( 14 ). There is yet another aspect of the matter. It has been held above that Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act isspecifically applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the present applicationis not maintainable on this score also. ( 14 ). There is yet another aspect of the matter. Defendant No. 1 vide para 15 ofthis amended written statement has stated that he has assured the plaintiffs throughhis letter dated 2/02/1996, that there would be no shortage of water andadequate water supply would be maintained. In view of the above assurance, thereshould be no grievance from the side of the plaintiffs. In the above circumstances, I do not see any force in the present application. It is hereby dismissed.