Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 163 (UTT)

KARNAIL SINGH v. ASHOK KUMAR

2014-04-03

ALOK SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J ( Oral). Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 02.09.2005 passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (JD), Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar whereby application moved by the tenant/petitioner, herein, under Section 27 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for restoring the electricity connection was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner, claiming himself to be a tenant of shop, in question, moved an application under Section 27 of the Act saying electricity connection was got disconnected on 20.07.2005 by the landlord/respondent, herein, with the collusion of Electricity Department, therefore, same may be restored. 3. Learned Prescribed Authority in the impugned order has observed that as per report of the Electricity Department, Electricity Connection No. H 504/0111953 was issued in the name of Lakhiram, son of Chatramal, resident of Kichcha Road, Sitarganj, earlier tenant of shop, in question and that connection was disconnected permanently on 23.12.1999 and it was never restored after 23.12.1999, therefore, allegation of the tenant/petitioner, herein, that the same was got disconnected on 20.07.2005, is not correct. 4. I have heard Mr. Bharat Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.C. Pandey, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Devesh Upreti, Advocate for respondent and have carefully perused the record. 5. Section 27 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 reads as under: “Section 27 - Enforcement of landlord’s obligation regarding amenities. (1) The prescribed authority may, on an application of the tenant, serve upon the landlord a notice requiring him, within such period, not exceeding one week, as may be specified in the notice, to restore any amenity alleged to have been cut off, withheld or reduced in contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 26 or to show cause why an order under this Section be not passed against him. (2) If the landlord fails to restore the amenity within the said period, or to show sufficient cause, the prescribed authority may by order permit the tenant to have the amenity restored at his cost, and thereupon the tenant shall be entitled to recover such cost as may be incurred by him in pursuance of the order, by deduction from the rent payable to the landlord, after furnishing to him the account of the expenditure, and nothing in Section 6 shall be deemed to apply to such cost.” 6. A plain and simple reading of Section 27 shall demonstrate that the prescribed authority, on an application of the tenant, shall require the landlord to restore any amenity alleged to have been cut off, withheld or reduced in contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 26. Therefore, sine qua non to invoke Section 27 of the Act is that at the time of induction of tenant, there must be amenity and that amenity must be cut off, withheld or reduced by the landlord during the tenancy. If amenity was not provided, at the time of induction of tenant and was not cut off, withheld or reduced by the landlord, then there is no question of restoring the same. 7. In view of the fact that earlier electricity connection was in the name of Lakhiram and the same was permanently disconnected on 23.12.1999 and thereafter, was never restored, therefore, allegation of the tenant/petitioner that the same was got disconnected by landlord/ respondents on 20.07.2005 proved to be false and incorrect. Therefore, the same cannot be directed to be restored. Therefore, petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the costs.