JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is maintained by the petitioner against the order dated 29. 10. 2015, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, H. P. , in Rent Appeal No. 27-S/14 of 2015, whereby order dated 29. 11. 2014, passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No. 1, Shimla, in Rent Petition No. 23-2 of 2014 has been set aside. 2. Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present petition are that the present respondent/tenant has filed a petition, under Section 11 of the Rent Act, against the petitioner/landlady qua the rented premises, i. e. shop, situated near Police Station, BCS, New Shimla, wherein it has been averred that the respondent/tenant is running a mobile repair shop in the said premises, under the name and style of M/s Anjali Cell Care. The monthly rent of the said shop is Rs. 7,705/- per month. As per the respondent/tenant, the premise was rented out in the year 2009, on the basis of oral agreement between the parties. Alongwith the petition, the respondent/tenant has also moved an application under Section 11(3) of the Rent Act, wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner/landlady is harassing and coercing him to vacate the rented premises and on 18. 07. 2017, the landlady has cut of the electricity connection from the rented premises. It has been further alleged in the application that without electricity supply, the respondent/tenant is suffering from financial loss of Rs. 2,500/- per day and, therefore, the electricity supply may kindly be ordered to be restored. 3. The petitioner/landlady resisted the application by filing reply and admitted therein that the applicant is running mobile repair shop in the name and style of M/s Anjali Care Centre. It has been further averred in the reply that no electricity connection or fitting has ever been provided to the respondent/tenant by her and the applicant himself has done electricity fitting in the tenanted premises and there is no independent meter in the said premises, as such, she is unable to provide electricity to the respondent/tenant. Lastly she prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 29. 11. 2014, dismissed the application, so filed by the respondent/tenant. Lastly she prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 29. 11. 2014, dismissed the application, so filed by the respondent/tenant. Subsequently, the respondent/tenant preferred the appeal under Section 24 of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act before the learned lower Appellate Court, which was allowed and order dated 29. 11. 2014 has been set aside and petitioner/landlady was directed to restore the amenity of electricity to the premises of the tenant. Hence the present petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 6. Mr. Jagmohan Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner/landlady has argued that learned lower Appellate Court without there being any right in favour of the tenant and without appreciating the facts, which have come on record to their true perspective allowed the appeal, and, therefore, the order passed by the learned lower Appellate Court in appeal is required to be set aside. He has further argued that there was no electricity provided to the tenant by the landlady and so there is no question for disconnecting the same. Further the tenant is not paying any rent nor into an agreement for the fixed period, therefore, the landlady is not liable to provide electricity to him. On the other hand, Ms. Reena Sharma, Advocate, has argued that the remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 24(5) of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act and the present petition is thus not maintainable. She has further argued that from 2014, the electricity of the tenant has been disconnected by the landlady and in spite of the tenant paying rent regularly, which is quite high, the electricity has not been provided to him, so as to harass him intentionally, therefore, well reasoned judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court needs no interference. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner/landlady has argued that the landlady has applied for the electricity connection for the shop and as the tenant is not entering into an agreement for a fixed period, nor paying up-to-date rent, so electricity cannot be provided to him. He has further reiterated that at no point of time the electricity was provided to the tenant, who is not running a shop, but it is a Dhaara. 7. He has further reiterated that at no point of time the electricity was provided to the tenant, who is not running a shop, but it is a Dhaara. 7. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the record in detail. 8. Section 11 of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, which safeguards the interest of the tenant, provides as under: "(1) No landlord either himself or through any person purporting to act on his behalf shall, without just and sufficient cause cut off or withhold any essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the building or rented land let out to him. (2) If a landlord contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1), the tenant may make an application to the Controller complaining of such contravention. (3) If the Controller is satisfied that the essential supply or service was cut off or withheld by the landlord with a view to compelling the tenant to vacate the premises or to pay an enhanced rent, the Controller may pass an order directing the landlord to restore the amenities immediately pending the enquiry referred to in sub-section Explanation- An interim order may be passed under this sub-section without giving notice to the landlord. (4) If the Controller, on enquiry find that the essential supply service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the building or rented land was cut off or withheld by the landlord without just and sufficient cause, he shall make an order directing the landlord to restore such supply or service. (5) The Controller may, in his discretion, direct that compensation, not exceeding one hundred rupees,- (a) be paid to the landlord by the tenant if the application under sub-section (2) was made frivolous or vexatiously; (b) be paid to the tenant by the landlord, if the landlord had cut off or withheld the supply or service without just and sufficient cause. Explanation: I In this section, "essential supply or service" includes supply of water, electricity, lights in passages and on stair cases, conservancy and sanitary service. Explanation: II For the purpose of this section, withholding any essential supply or service shall include acts or omissions attributable to the landlord on account of which the essential supply or service is cut off by the local authority or any other competent authority. Explanation: II For the purpose of this section, withholding any essential supply or service shall include acts or omissions attributable to the landlord on account of which the essential supply or service is cut off by the local authority or any other competent authority. " Meaning thereby that even the interim orders can be passed without giving notice to the party. 9. At the same point of time, under Section 24(5) of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, there is alternative remedy available to the landlord. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India extraordinary remedy can be exercised only when there is no efficacious remedy. The remedy provided under Section 24(5) of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act is equal efficacious remedy and arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant that this Court has no jurisdiction, has a force. When equal efficacious remedy is available, the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised. So, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. However, as the present petition is pending adjudication before this Court for approximately seven months, this Court deems it appropriate to adjudicate the same on merits. As far as the tenant is concerned, it has come on record that he is paying rent to the landlady regularly. 10. Though, the landlady has disputed that some arrears are still due, but for that purpose the landlady has remedy under the Act to maintain a separate petition for arrears of rent. However, as far as the present proceedings are concerned, whether the landlady can disconnect the electricity provided to the tenant, this Court finds that electricity is necessary for the tenant to run his shop and cannot be disconnected. The facts of the present case are made complicated by the landlady by proving that the electricity was not provided by her through a separate meter, but from the other meter, which the landlady has in her name for the other premises. 11. The tenant in his reply pleaded that the electricity connection has been provided by the landlady, however the electricity fittings work has been done by him by incurring huge amount, which has been disconnected by the landlady on 18. 07. 2014 and in this regard the tenant moved a complaint before the In-charge Police Station, New Shimla, dated 18. 07. 2014. 07. 2014 and in this regard the tenant moved a complaint before the In-charge Police Station, New Shimla, dated 18. 07. 2014. The tenant in his complaint specifically mentioned that the meter has been removed from the shop in question and the same has been installed at some other place. From this, prime facie it appears that the electricity connection was there in the shop in question. 12. From the above stated position, it is clear that basic facilities of electricity has been withheld by the landlady, therefore an appropriate order is required to be passed. The landlady has taken specific stand that neither electricity has ever been provided by her to the tenant, nor there has been any meter in the said shop. In these circumstances, this Court finds thinks it appropriate to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to meet the ends of justice by directing HPSEB, through its Executive Engineer of the area concerned to provide electricity meter to the tenant immediately on his completing the necessary formalities, other than no objection from the landlady. 13. It is made clear that Electricity Board shall not insist for no objection from the landlady and shall provide electricity meter to the shop in question, in the name of the tenant within seven days after completion of all necessary formalities by him. The petition though required to be dismissed with costs, however taking into consideration the averments, as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/landlady that the husband of the landlady is not keeping good health and they both are aged persons, this Court leave the parties to bear their own costs. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 22nd May, 2018. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.