- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 14-1-1994 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition ).
(2.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this case the petitioners are landlord of the disputed premises. The tenant filed an application under Section 27 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition ). In this application it was alleged that the landlord had cut off the amenities of bathroom and toilet which were being used by the respondents employees including lady employees. The petitioners filed an objection to this application (Annexure 2 to the writ petition ). However, by the impugned order dated 14-1-1994 the tenant's application under Section 27 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was allowed Aggrieved the present petition has been filed in this Court. In the impugned order dated 14-1-1994 it has been held that the tenants have been using bathroom and toilet since 1978 until the landlord in 1989 prevented the employees of the respondents from using the bathroom and toilet. I have perused the impugned order and find no infirmity in the same. In my opinion, the bathroom and toilet form part of the amenities. Learned counsel for this petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of the Court in P. R. Sen Gupta v. The Family Planning Association of India, Lucknow and others, AIR 1980 All 63. In view of this decision the order which has been passed under Section 27 of the Act can be passed only if contract between the parties provided for amenities or if the amenities are actually being enjoyed. In the present case, the finding of fact recorded by the Prescribed Authority is that the amenities were being enjoyed from 1988 to 1989. Thus, the aforesaid decision is distinguishable. In my opinion, since the store is of dimension 60 ft. x 60 ft. and the employees of working there, it is evident that toilet is necessary for the use of the employees. Thus, there is no force in this petition. Accordingly it. Is dismissed However, on the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners I grant one month's time to the petitioners to remove the wall in question so that amenity of toilet and bathroom can be enjoyed. W. P. dismissed. .;