- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority dated 16.2.76 allowing in application filed by respondents No. 2 under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) hereinafter referred to as the Act. Admittedly the petitioner is the owner and landlord of house No. 231 situated in Mohalla Jatvada, Ghaziabad. One of the shops of this premises had been let out by the petitioner to respondent No. 2. The main matter of the electricity was installed in the portion in occupation of the petitioner whereas its sub-meter was installed in the shop in the tenancy of the respondent No. 2. It, however, appears that there was some dispute between the parties relating to ejectment of respondent No. 2 from the shop in dispute. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner got disconnected the electricity supply to the respondent No. 2. Thereupon the said respondent filed an application under Section 27 of the Act for a direction to the petitioner to restore the supply of electricity on the ground that he was enjoying the said facility and the same had been withheld by the petitioner unlawfully and unjustifiably. The application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that as the premises was not covered by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, therefore, the application filed under Section 27 was not maintainable; that as respondent No. 2 had not paid the rent of the premises including the electricity charges, therefore, cutting off the electric connection was fully justified. The parties filed affidavit before the Prescribed Authority. After consideration of the affidavits and the circumstances brought on the record, the Prescribed Authority held that the shop was an old construction and that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable. It was further held by the Prescribed Authority that the supply of electricity was the amenity to which the respondent No. 2 was entitled. On these findings the application was allowed and the petitioner was directed to restore the electricity connection within a period of four days from the date of the passing of the order i.e., on 16th February, 1976. The Prescribed Authority further directed that in case the petitioner failed to do so within the time allowed by it, the respondent No. 2 would be entitled to get it restored at the expenses of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition has been field.
(2.) Two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition. The first submission was that as the supply as electricity is not an amenity within the meaning of that word used in Section 27, therefore, the application filed by the respondent No. 2 was not maintainable. We do not find any merit in this submission. It appears to us that it is not possible to accept that the supply of electricity to a tenant by a landlord is not an amenity covered by Section 27 of the Act. "Amenity" means something which conduces to physical of material comfort to a pleasant and agreeable life. It would be possible now in 1977 for anybody to contend that the supply of electricity is not an amenity. As a matter of fact it is a necessity. What is the necessity can also be considered as amenity. Counsel for the petitioner, however, wanted to interpret Section 27 of the Act with the aid of sub-section (1) of Section 26 and submitted that the scope of Section 27 should be confined to the matters mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 26. It is not possible to accept this submission. It appears to us that the amenity of supply of electricity is covered to sub-section (1) of Section 26 which lays down that no landlord shall without lawful authority or excuse cut off, which hold or reduce any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. For these reasons we find that the submissions has no substance.
(3.) The second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that as Court below did not give any finding required by sub-section (1) of Section 26 to the effect that the petitioner was not legally justified in cutting off the electricity supply, therefore, the order of the Prescribed Authority has very clearly found that after considering the evidence of the parties of which the supply of electricity to the respondent No. 2 was stopped. The finding that the petitioner failed to show and establish that he was lawfully justified in cutting off the supply of electricity is of fact it is not possible to interfere with it.;