Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 12 (ALL)

SUDEEP SARAN v. JAG MOHAN LAL KHURANA

2018-01-03

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. 1. Heard Sri S.K. Varma, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Bipin Lal Khurana, learned counsel for defendants-petitioners/landlords. No one appears on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents/tenants. 2. In view of the office report dated 02.01.2018, service of notice upon the defendants-respondents No.1 and 2 is deemed sufficient. Facts:- 3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is a tenant occupying a shop in the house owned by the petitioners-landlords, at a monthly rent of Rs.1000/- since last more than 25 years. The plaintiff-respondent No.1/tenant was being given amenity in the form of electricity supply by the defendants-petitioners. However, the electricity supply was obstructed and stopped by the defendants-petitioners to the plaintiff-respondent/tenant in September, 2014. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff-respondent No.1/tenant applied for an electricity connection vide Receipt No.1001864282 dated 20.12.2014. An Electricity Connection No.3009/207883 was allotted to him by the respondent No.2 i.e. the Electricity Department. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 informed the plaintiff-respondent/tenant that objection to the electricity connection has been made by the defendants-petitioners/landlord. Consequently, the sanctioned electricity connection was not given by the respondent No.2. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff-respondent No.1/tenant filed a Misc. P.A. Case No.02 of 2015 (Jag Mohan Lal Khurana vs. Dr. Sudeep Saran and two others) before the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Cause Court, Bareilly which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 05.08.2017 directing as under: ^^vkns'k ;kph dh ;kfpdk iz'uxr nqdku ftldh pkSgn~nh ;kfpdk esa nh x;h gS] ds lEcU/k esa fo|qr vkiwfrZ lapkfyr fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa vkKIrh dh tkrh gS vkSj foi{kh la0 1 o 2 dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkns'k dh frfFk ls 15 fnu ds vUnj iz'uxr mijksDr nqdku esa fo|qr vkiwfrZ nsuk lqfuf'pr djsaA vlQy jgus dh fLFfr esa foi{kh la0 3 dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd fo|qr dusD'ku ua0 3009@207883 fdjk;snkjh okys ifjlj esa la;ksftr djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA mijksDr dusD'ku ;kph@ vkosnd ds [kpsZ ij yxk;k tk;sxk vkSj mDr jkf'k fdjk;s esa fu;ekuqlkj lek;ksftr dh tk;sxhA** 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order/direction, the defendants-petitioners/landlords have filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners/landlords submits that without consent of the landlord, electricity connection cannot be granted by the electricity department. Therefore, the impugned order directing the respondent No.2 to give electricity connection to the plaintiff-respondent No.1/tenant, is wholly illegal. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners/landlords submits that without consent of the landlord, electricity connection cannot be granted by the electricity department. Therefore, the impugned order directing the respondent No.2 to give electricity connection to the plaintiff-respondent No.1/tenant, is wholly illegal. In support of his submissions, he relied upon three Division Bench judgments of this Court in Ravi Shanker Giri vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Alld. and others, 2007 (68) ALR 430, Seema Mansoor vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman, Lucknow, 2014 (105) ALR 885 and judgment dated 03.01.2014 in C.M.W.P. No.71425 of 2013 (Iftakhar Ahsan vs. State of U.P. and others). Discussion and Findings:- 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners/landlords and perused the record of the petition before me. 7. Before I proceed to examine the submissions of defendants-petitioners/landlords, it would be beneficial to reproduce the provisions of Sections 26 and 27 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lent, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 as under: "26. Certain obligations of the landlord and tenant. - (1) No landlord shall without lawful authority or excuse cut off, withhold or reduce any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. (2) The landlord shall be bound to keep the building under tenancy windproof and waterproof and, subject to any contract in writing to the contrary, carry out periodical whitewashing and repairs. (3) Subject to any contract in writing to the contrary, no tenant shall, whether during the continuance of the tenancy or after its determination, demolish any improvement effected by him in the building or remove any material used in such improvement, other than any fixtures of a movable nature. Explanation.- The expression "material used in such improvement" includes the wiring of an electrical fitting or a pipe pertaining to any water connection. (4) The landlord shall give to the tenant a receipt for rent payable to and received by him. 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." 8. Undisputedly, the plaintiffs-respondents/tenants were enjoying the amenity in the form of electricity given by the defendants-petitioners/landlords to him. As per provisions of Section 26(1) of the Act, no landlord shall without lawful authority or excuse cut off, withhold or reduce any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. Therefore, it was not permissible for the defendants-petitioners/landlords to cut off or withhold the amenity in the form of electricity being enjoyed by the plaintiffs-respondents/tenants. Since the defendants-petitioners/landlords have cut off the electricity supply enjoyed by the plaintiffs-respondents/tenants, therefore, the plaintiffs-respondents/tenants have lawfully issued a notice to the defendants-petitioners requiring them to restore the aforesaid amenity. On failure on the part of the defendants-petitioners/landlords, the plaintiffs-respondents/tenants filed the aforesaid Misc. P.A. Case No.02 of 2015 for enforcement of the landlords' obligation. By the impugned order passed in the aforesaid P.A. Case, the Prescribed Authority has directed the defendants-petitioners to restore the electricity supply and in case of failure, directed the respondent No.2 (Electricity Department) to connect the Electricity Connection No.3009/207883 in the tenanted portion. This direction of the Prescribed Authority in the impugned order is well within the four corners of Section 27(1)/(2) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law. The judgments relied by learned counsel for defendants-petitioners do not relate to the provisions of the Act 13 of 1972, therefore, those judgments are of no help to them. 9. In the case of Smt. Puspa Sen Gupta vs. Smt. Susma Ghose, (1990) 2 SCC 651 (para-3), Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 wherein the expression "Rent" was not defined. It was held that expression 'rent' includes not only rent, but also payment in respect of amenities or services provided by the landlord under the terms of tenancy. It was held that expression 'rent' includes not only rent, but also payment in respect of amenities or services provided by the landlord under the terms of tenancy. Accordingly, the supply of electricity to the tenant was held to be an amenity. 10. In case of Maya Devi vs. Narendra Singh, 2003 (2) ARC 97, this Court considered the provisions of Section 27 of the Act and held that the trial court has not committed any error of law and has not exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the restoration of the amenity of electricity which was available to the defendant. 11. In the case of Rameshwar Prasad vs. First Additional Civil Judge, 1987 (13) ALR 580, this court held that the law enjoins that a tenant is at least entitled to basic amenities and there was no occasion for the landlord to have deprived his tenant of electricity, which is a basic amenity. In the case of Heera Devi vs. Prescribed Authority, 1987 (13) ALR 574, this court again took similar view. 12. In an application for restoration of amenities enjoyed by a tenant, he has to establish that the amenity which has been cut off, withheld or reduced by the landlord is in contravention of Section 26 of the Act. In such circumstances, the tenant shall be entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 27 of the Act for enforcement of "landlords' obligation" regarding amenities. The Prescribed Authority is under a statutory obligation to find out whether the amenities enjoyed by the tenant has been cut off, withheld or reduced by the landlord. If the Prescribed Authority finds that the landlord without lawful authority or excuse, has cut off, withheld or reduced any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant and has not restored the amenity within the period provided under sub-section (1) of Section 27 or could not show sufficient cause, then the Prescribed Authority may, by order, permit the tenant to have the amenity restored at his costs, 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. The facts of the present case as discussed above leaves no manner of doubt that amenity in the form of electricity supply was being enjoyed by the plaintiffs-respondents/tenants which was cut off by defendant-petitioners/landlords. Therefore, the Prescribed Authority has not committed any error of law to direct the defendants-petitioners/landlords to restore the electricity supply to the tenants or in the event of non-restoration directed the respondent No.2 to activate the electricity connection No.3009/207883 to the plaintiff-respondent No.1. 13. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this petition. In result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.