S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Shri Bhatt waives the service of the rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is neither necessary nor proper party to this special civil application. Its name is ordered to be deleted from the title of the special civil application. Office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the special civil application. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) THE facts of this case in brief are that the petitioner applied to the Deputy collector, Bhavnagar for an order for the electric connection in the disputed premises where she lives in, situated in Plot No. I/a, Madhuvan in Takhateswer Plot area, bhavnagar, stating inter alia that she is a tenant in the above premises and the respondent is the landlord thereof. The landlord does not allow her to get the electric connection as he has not given his consent for the same. The Deputy Collector, Bhavnagar has granted the application of the petitioner. The landlord being dissatisfied with that order filed a revision application in the District Court, Bhavnagar which came to be decided under the order dated 23. 7. 1998 by the Assistant Judge, Bhavnagar. The revision application has been allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the Deputy Collector, Bhavnagar for trial thereof afresh before him and to give his decision in view of the observations made by the Court in the judgment. ( 4 ) FROM the order of the revisional Court, I find that the matter has been remanded as the Dy. Collector has not given any decision on the question of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Hence this special civil application before this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that whatever the decision given in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Sec. 23a of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is a tentative decision only for the purpose of giving the decision in favour of the tenant in the matter of providing amenities and not a binding decision between the parties in the suit for eviction. Prima facie, the Deputy collector, Bhavnagar has accepted that the relation of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. The revisional Court should not interfere with the order of the said authority. Prima facie, the Deputy collector, Bhavnagar has accepted that the relation of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. The revisional Court should not interfere with the order of the said authority. Lastly, it is contended that admittedly the petitioner is in possession of the suit premises and even if it is taken that there does not exist the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. But as it is a matter of providing of the amenity of electricity, which is a basic need of every citizen the revisional Court should not have interfered with the said order. The electricity is not a luxury but it is a bear necessity for the life and even if it is taken that the petitioner is a trespasser or she is not a tenant in the premises, she is entitled to have this facility in the premises and enjoy the same till she has been vacated from the same by due process of law. ( 5 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed this special civil application. ( 6 ) I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 7 ) IT is a case where the Deputy Collector, Bhavnagar prima facie accepted that there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is true that the Deputy collector, Bhavnagar has not passed a lengthy order. But it is a fact that the petitioner is in possession of the suit premises and secondly the electricity is a bear necessity of the life and not luxury. If the landlord is not providing that amenity to the petitioner or if she has apprehension that the landlord may discontinue her this amenity or where to avoid any day today fight between the parties, which is not unknown in the country, if she desires a separate electric connection and the Deputy Collector has granted the same, to which no exception should have been taken by the revisional Court. I find sufficient merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the petitioner is only trespasser or there exists no relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties but so long she continues in possession of the premises she is entitled for the amenity of the electricity supply therein. I find sufficient merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the petitioner is only trespasser or there exists no relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties but so long she continues in possession of the premises she is entitled for the amenity of the electricity supply therein. This is a bear necessity of life and to have this amenity in the premises, it is suffice to say, the legal right of the occupier in the premises is not sine qua non. If the matter is considered from this angle and from the point of view that the occupier of the premises have right to have amenity of electricity, the revisional Court should not have interfered with the order of the Dy. Collector, Bhavnagar. In fact, the revisional Court has insisted on the form and not on the substance. The finding given by the Dy. Collector, Bhavnagar on the question of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is hardly of any substance and value as otherwise it is not binding on the landlord. This is only a tentative finding given, which otherwise cannot be taken to be final adjudication on this issue. From this finding, it cannot be taken that the landlord is estopped from raising this point in other proceedings or more precisely proceedings for dispossession of the petitioner from the disputed premises. ( 8 ) TAKING into consideration the totality of the facts of this case, I am satisfied that the interference made by the revisional Court with the order of the Dy. Collector, Bhavnagar is not justified. This is an interference with the order of the Dy. Collector, Bhavnagar under which no final adjudication is made on the dispute of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is made clear that the order passed by the Deputy collector, Bhavnagar in this case will be taken only to the extent it relates to the grant of the order in favour of the petitioner for separate electric connection in premises. In case any proceeding is started or for dispossession of the petitioner from the suit premises, this decision of the Dy. Collector, Bhavnagar will not be taken to be a binding decision between the parties on the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant. In case any proceeding is started or for dispossession of the petitioner from the suit premises, this decision of the Dy. Collector, Bhavnagar will not be taken to be a binding decision between the parties on the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant. In the result, this special civil application succeeds and the same is allowed and the order of the Assistant Judge, Bhavnagar dated 23. 7. 1998 in Misc. Civil Application No. 11/95 is quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. .