J.V.GUPTA,J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the interim order of the Rent Controller, dated June 11, 1986, passed in a petition under Section 10 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (hereinafter called the Act).
(2.) THE tenant-respondent complained to the Rent Controller by filing the petition under Section 10 of the Act, that the amenity of electricity which was being enjoyed by it, but withdrawn by the landlord illegally, be restored to it. The learned Rent controller, after hearing the parties, found that the landlord could not be allowed to take away this amenity. If for continuing this amenity, the Landlord was to file fresh test reports to the Haryana State Electricity Board, he was to file the same. On the record, it was clear that it was the Landlord who had disconnected the premises in possession of the tenant. As the enjoyment of the electricity was very much necessary, the petitioner (Landlord) was directed to connect the premises with the electric energy within a period of four days at his own costs. At the time of the motion hearing on July 11, 1986, the operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court.
(3.) THE main argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he was not the landlord qua the premises in dispute and, therefore, no order could be passed against him. According to him, it was Shanti Lal who was the landlord thereto. He had not been served in the petition under Section 10 of the Act. A contention was also raised that no such direction, that they should connect the premises of the tenant with electric energy within a period of four days, could be given as according to the learned counsel, it was illegal.;