Gopalji Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This is an application Under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that an order dated 13 -6 -1955 and one dated 13 -7 -1955 passed by the Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the District Magistrate respectively be quashed.
(2.) The applicant is the landlord of House No. 187, old Bairana, Allahabad and the opposite party No. 3, Durga Prasad, is a tenant in the lower portion of the house. There is a water tap in the portion occupied by the opposite party No. 3 which is used by him. Since the opposite party No. 3 occupied the premises, there has been, as alleged by the applicant waste of water and the excess water charges raised from -/8/ - to Re. 1 per month and ultimately to Rs. 8 per month. As the excess water charges were not paid, the Municipal Board cut the water connection and thereafter the opposite party No. 3 made an application Under Sec. 7 -D of the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act to the District Magistrate who forwarded the application for disposal to the opposite -party No. 2, the Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad. On 13 -6 -1955, the opposite -party No. 2 passed an order directing the applicant to restore the water connection and further directed that in case of his failure to do so, the tenant had the light to get the connection restored and deduct the charges thereof from the rent. The applicant thereafter made an application to the District Magistrate for a fresh hearing of the matter and by his order dated 18 -7 -1955, he declined to interfere with the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 13 -6 -1955. A suit has also been filed by the applicant against the tenant for a declaration that the rent agreed upon between the applicant and the opposite -party included the payment of water -tax but any excess water tax had to be paid by the tenant.
(3.) Notices were issued to the opposite -parties and in the counter -affidavit it is denied that the rent agreed upon between the parties only included water -tax and the excess charges had to be paid by the tenant. Two points were urged by the applicant in this petition; Firstly, it was contended that as the water connection had been cut by the municipal board for non -payment of the excess charges, the applicant -landlord has not deprived the tenant of any amenity and consequently no orders could be passed Under Sec. 7 -D of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act. There is no force in this contention of the applicant. The excess water tax could have been paid by the landlord and thus the ordinary convenience enjoyed by the tenant would not have been affected by the cutting of the water connection. He has been deprived of even the normal consumption of water. There is, therefore, no force n this contention of the applicant.;