Gopi Nath, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. It challenges an order of Respondent No. 1 dt. 31 -1 -1972. By that order the Respondent No. 1 directed the Petitioner to restore a latrine for the use of Respondent No. 2. The order was passed Under Section 7 -D of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Petitioner is a landlord of an accommodation No. 78, Sabitganj, Etawah and the Respondent No. 2 is a tenant thereof. There was a latrine in front of this house which, according to the Respondent No. 2, was used by him. The Petitioner demolished the latrine. The Respondent No. 2 thereupon filed an application Under Section 7 -D of the Act for the restoration of the latrine, which according to him, was an amenity enjoyed by him since 1940. The Petitioner contested the application on the ground that the latrine was not meant for the use of Respondent No. 2 but was constructed for the use of one Roshan, who was a tenant of another accommodation described as Kotha No. 77. It appears, that after the death of Roshan that accommodation was let out to one Mahfooz Ali and there was some dispute between Mahfooz Ali and Respondent No. 2 in respect of the use of this latrine. By an award dt. 12 -7 -1969 given by the Petitioner it was held that Mahfooz Ali could remove the latrine but if the relations between the parties continued to be cordial the latrine would remain at its place which impliedly meant that the latrine could be used by the Respondent No. 2 also by the agreement of Mahfooz Ali.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 in his application Under Section 7 -D alleged that he continues to use the latrine which was an amenity enjoyed by him. The Petitioner acted in contravention of Section 7 -D of the Act in withholding that amenity by demolishing the latrine. The Petitioner's case was that the latrine was not an amenity meant for the enjoyment of Respondent No. 2 since the Petitioner had another latrine in his accommodation. It was further alleged that the Petitioner had no been using the latrine. Both parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence before the Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner (?) produced six documents and oral evidence in support of his claim that the latrine had been used by him for a long time. The Petitioner produced oral evidence to the effect that the latrine was no part of the accommodation leased out to Respondent No. 2 nor was it used by him. The Respondent No. 1 by a detailed order accepted the claim of Respondent No. 2 and held that the latrine was an amenity enjoyed by him and its restoration for his use was necessary.
(3.) THE order has been challenged on the grounds: (i) that the latrine was not an amenity; (ii) that the Respondent No. 2 had no right in respect of the latrine as it was not a part of the accommodation leased out to him; and (iii) that the order of Respondent no, 1 is not a reasoned order. I find no substance in any of the grounds urged. An amenity Under Section 7 -D is a facility given and enjoyed by the occupant or occupants of a leased property. It cannot be equated to indispensable need. In Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 3 at p. 1044 it has been described as "such circumstances, in regard to situation, outlook, access to a watercourse, or the like, as enhance the pleasantness, or desirability of an estate for purposes of residence, or contribute to the pleasure and enjoyment of the occupants, rather than to their indispensable needs, restraining the owner from doing that with, and on his own property which but for a grant or covenant he might lawfully have done". A bath -room has been held to be an amenity in Ullal Dinkar Rao v. M. Ratna Bai , AIR 1958 Mys. 77 and N. Satyanathan v. K. Subramanyan, 1955 (3) MLJ 31. Further an amenity is a question of fact and the Respondent No. I has given a finding that the latrine in question was an amenity enjoyed by Respondent No. 2.;