Mathur, J. - (1.) This is landlord's petition arising from proceedings under Section 27 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 13 of 1972. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the tenants of the petitioner. Opposite parties 1 and 2 moved application under Section 27 of the above Act against the petitioner complaining that the petitioner has withdrawn the amenity of electric water lifting pump through which the water used to be lifted from the ground floor to the reservoir on the upper floor. The case of opposite parties 1 and 2 was that this amenity had been provided by the petitioner and they had been enjoying the same throughout. It was further their case that on account of the withdrawal of the amenity of electric water lifting pump, they were not getting water supply. This application was opposed on behalf of the petitioner who alleged that there was no contract for providing water lifting pump nor water lifting pump had ever been provided by him. In support of their case affidavits were filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2. The petitioner filed his own affidavit as well as the affidavit of Roop Chandra who resided in the same locality where the house in question was situate.
(2.) By his order dated 27th October 1975 the Prescribed Authority allowed the application of opposite parties 1 and 2. While dealing with the controversy whether the amenity of water lifting pump was available to opposite parties 1 and 2 at any point of time, the Prescribed Authority merely observed that the petitioner had failed to place on record solid proof in respect of his case that the amenity had not been provided. The order of the Prescribed Authority does not refer to the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner and opposite parties 1 and 2. The Prescribed Authority has also made no observation as to which affidavit he considered reliable and which affidavit he thought was not worthy of reliance.
(3.) On behalf of the petitioner the above order has been challenged on the ground that in view of the provisions contained in Sections 26 and 27 of the aforementioned Act an order of the nature passed by the Prescribed Authority could be passed only if there was contract between the parties for providing the amenity or if the amenity had actually been enjoyed, which could be said to be under an implied contract. Sub-sections (1) of Section 26 of the Act provides as follows:-- "26 (1) No landlord shall without lawful authority or excuse cut off, withhold or reduce any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant." Sub-section (1) of Section 27 enables the tenant whose amenity has been withdrawn by the landlord to move application for restoration of the amenity. Sub-section (1) of Section 27 refers to the amenities mentioned under Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Act. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 28 the obligation upon the landlord not to withdraw an amenity is in respect of an amenity which was already being enjoyed by the tenant This contemplates that an application under Sub-sections (1) of Section 27 can be maintained only in respect of an amenity which was being enjoyed by the tenant. In the present case it was the specific case of the petitioner that the amenity of water lifting pump had never been provided by him. In respect of this case he filed his own affidavit and that of a resident of the locality. The proceedings before the Prescribed Authority were of quasi judicial nature and as such the said authority was required to pass a speaking order giving reasons for rejecting the case of the petitioner and accepting the case of opposite parties 1 and 2. The Prescribed Authority has given no reason for not accepting the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner. Thus he has not acted in the manner in which a quasi judicial authority should have acted. The order of the Prescribed Authority is thus obviously erroneous and deserves to be quashed. 4. In view of the above the order dated 27th Oct. 1975 made by the Prescribed Authority (Additional District Magistrate, City) under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act No. XIII of 1972 is hereby quashed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.;