B. A. Khan ( 1 ) PETITIONER is the landlady and respondent her tenant. Respondent s petition under Section 45 of D. R. C Act was allowed under order dated 8. 12. 1999. He alleged non-compliance of this order by filling a contempt petition and ARC passed order dated 14,1,2000 directing DVB to sanction a new domestic connection for him. ( 2 ) PETITIONER filed RCA No. 158/2000 against this which was allowed by Rent Control Tribunal by order dated 6. 7. 2000 directing DVB to disconnect the newly installed meter and asking petitioner to restore electricity supply to respondent Respondent filed a review against this order and sought clarification that his new connection be disconnected only after petitioner restored electricity supply to him, Tribunal allowed this review petition vide order dated 7. 8. 2000 directing DVB to instal a new meter for respondent ( 3 ) PETITIONER has filed this revision to challenge this order on the ground that it had exceeded the prayer made by respondent and had also upset first order dated 6. 7. 2000. It is submitted that new domestic connection given to respondent would attract all liability for petitioner, past and future case of default by respondent because it was the premises and not the person which was liable for recovery proceedings under the Electricity Act ( 4 ) THERE is no doubt that impugned order passed on review runs counter to first order passed by Tribunal dated 6. 7. 2000 whereby respondent s newly installed meter was ordered to be disconnected. The order appears to have been passed overlooking the requirements of review because it was nowhere respondent s case that first order suffered from any apparent error as such. Moreover, respondent had only wanted his meter to be continued till petitioner would restore his supply but impugned order had given him more than what he wanted which had the consequence of dismissing petitioner s RCA No. 1 158/2000 which was allowed by first order. The impugned order naturally cannot sustain and is set aside. But this does not detract from the fact that respondent-ten ant required to be given electricity supply either through petitioner s meter or otherwise. The impugned order naturally cannot sustain and is set aside. But this does not detract from the fact that respondent-ten ant required to be given electricity supply either through petitioner s meter or otherwise. Petitioner is accordingly required to ensure his uninterrupted supply from the sub-meter failing which respondent may have no option but to seek a separate connection on his own guarantee and withoutt making premises liable for any default The petition is allowed to the extent indicated and impugned order dated 7. 8. 2000 set aside.