JUDGMENT Fakhruddin, J. 1. Heard on M.C.P. No. 501 of 2002 for grant of interim relief. 2. It is submitted that the appellant was the tenant, and the respondent has disconnected the electricity supply from the suit house, which the appellant is in possession and she is residing therein with her children. It is further submitted that the daughters of the appellant are pursuing studies and preparing for examinations and in the absence of essential service like electricity they are facing great inconvenience. It is stated that there is separate meter and amount was offered towards electricity charges but the power has not been supplied. 3. Counsel for the appellant relied on Dilbag Singh vs. Badri Parsed, 1987 (2) MPWN 219, wherein it has been held that there is no law prohibiting the tenant from taking connection for supply of water to the premises hired by him, it must be deemed that for the purpose of the tenancy for the user of the premises, essential supply of services can be claimed by the tenant from the landlord and if that is refused, from the Court. 4. Section 37 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act prescribes 'Landlord's duty to keep accommodation in good repair' and requires every landlord to keep the accommodation in good and tenantable repairs. Section 38 of the Act prescribes 'Cutting off or withholding essential supply or service. As per Section 38 (3) of the Act if the Rent Controlling Authority on inquiry finds that the essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the accommodation was cut off or withheld by the landlord without just and sufficient cause, it shall make an order directing the landlord to restore such supply or service. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent was pointedly asked but he has not categorically admitted whether he is owner or landlord. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent cited a decision Bhagwati Parsed and Anr. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent was pointedly asked but he has not categorically admitted whether he is owner or landlord. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent cited a decision Bhagwati Parsed and Anr. v. Omprakash, reported in 1982 MPRCJ 150, wherein the tenant filing application for ad interim relief of restoration of electric supply - rent and electricity charges not proved to be regularly paid - interim relief refused; Surendra Agarwal v. Smt. Kamal Rani, 1996 (II) MPWN 150, wherein interim relief of restoration of electricity was refused because relationship of landlord and tenant was to be decided; and another decision Mahabir Parsed Chandanlal v. Murarilal Kundanlal and Anr., reported in 1962 MPIJ 992, wherein it has been held that "in order to attract Section 8 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act all that is necessary is that the tenant must have been in enjoyment of the essential supply of electric service on the date it is cut off by the landlord. It is submitted by Shri Shrivastava that the respondent has not disconnected the electricity supply. 7. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. In the instant case appellant-tenant has prayed for supply of electricity, now-a-days which has become essential part of livelihood. Thus the appellant has right of electric supply from the Electricity Board subject to payment of bill. 8. Having heard Counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case so far as application for interim relief is concerned it is allowed. It is directed that Chhattisgarh Electricity Board shall supply electricity to the premises on completing formalities within a period of three days from the date of production of copy of this order, till adjudication of this matter. The Board authorities shall see that the electricity supply is restored on payment of usual charges and the tenant shall pay the bill of electricity consumption regularly. 9. Accordingly M.CP. No. 501/2002 and LA No. 1604/2002 stands disposed of.