Allahabad High Court
Smt. Maya Devi vs Thakur Narendra Singh And Anr. on 13 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)AWC1670
JUDGMENT N.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. This is a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and order dated 10.2.2003 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act, 1972, Kheri in Rent Case No. 2 of 2002, Thakur Narendra Singh v. Smt. Maya Devi, allowing the application under Section 27 of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, for restoring the supply of electricity.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist.
3. The revisionist has let out her house to the defendant-Opposite party No. 1 on 16.12.1997 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,700 per month. The electricity expenses were to be paid separately. It was alleged in the suit that the Opposite Party No. 1 did not pay monthly rent and the electricity charges in spite of the notices to him. On 9.5.2001, the notice determining the tenancy was pasted on the gate of the house. The plaintiff demanded Rs. 62,900 as rent and Rs. 6,627 as electricity charges. The suit is pending which is registered as Suit No. 3 of 2001. During the pendency of the suit, the opposite party No. 1 moved an application under Section 27 of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, with the allegations that his electricity supply has been disconnected since the month of April, 2002. This application was registered as Rent Case No. 2 of 2002 before the Prescribed Authority appointed under the aforesaid Act. The revisionist filed the objection and contended that the applicant is not a tenant of the revisionist because his tenancy was terminated on 9.5.2001 and as such, the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, are not applicable in his case. It was also contended that the electricity was disconnected in June, 2001, by the authorities of the electricity department due to non-payment of the electricity dues.
4. After hearing the parties, the learned Prescribed Authority allowed the application under Section 27 of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, by holding that the applicant (the defendant opposite party) was availing the facility of the electricity connection of K.V. 7212 which has been disconnected, therefore, this amenity is restored and the applicant can take direct connection from the electricity department and the amount of expenditure after taking re-connection can be adjusted in the amount due in Suit No. 3 of 2001. It is against this order, the present revision has been filed.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist, I am of the opinion that the contradictory stand has been taken by the revisionist. In para 1 of the memo of the revision, It is admitted that the defendant No. 1 was the tenant. In para 8 it is stated that the defendant-opposite party is not the tenant because his tenancy was terminated on 9.5.2001 and as such, the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, are not applicable in this case. This contention of the revisionist is misconceived because the Suit No. 3 of 2001 is still pending before the Court of Judge, Small Causes in which it is to be decided as to whether the tenancy was legally terminated. Unless this Issue is decided in that suit, it cannot be said that the defendant applicant was no more tenant and the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, was not applicable to the defendant to move an application under Section 27 of that Act. It is further contended by the revisionist that the electricity has been disconnected by the department of the electricity but in para 1 of the memo of the revision, it is admitted that the electricity expenses were to be paid separately and the suit for recovery of electricity expenses to the extent of Rs. 6,627 was filed. So however, the electricity connection was disconnected, it must be at the instance of the revisionist.
6. Section 26 (1) of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, provides that:
"No landlord shall without lawful authority or excuse cut off, withhold or reduce any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant."
7. Section 27 (1) of the said Act provides that "the prescribed authority may, on an application of the tenant, serve upon the landlord a notice requiring him, within such period, not exceeding one week, as may be specified in the notice to restore any amenity alleged to have been cut off, withheld or reduced in contravention of Sub-section (1) of Section 26 or to show cause why an order under this section be not passed against him." Sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act provides that "if, the landlord fails to restore the amenity within the said period, or to show sufficient cause the prescribed authority may by order permit the tenant to have the amenity restored at his cost, and thereupon the tenant shall be entitled to recover such cost as may be Incurred by him in pursuance of the order, by deduction from the rent payable to the landlord".
8. It is not the case of the revisionist that before passing the Impugned order, no notice was served on the landlord as required under Section 27 of the Act. I have seen the copy of the application moved by the opposite party under Section 27 of the Act and the copy of the objection filed before the prescribed authority by the revisionist.
9. Section 27 of the Act only provides for "amenity alleged to have been cut off which is sufficient to get the relief and the landlord has to show the sufficient cause or the lawful authority to cut off the amenity which was available to the tenant at the time of creation of the tenancy. In the instant case, the revisionist has not been able to show any lawful authority or reasonable excuse in not providing amenity, which was available to the defendant-opposite party at the time of the creation of tenancy.
10. The learned prescribed authority by allowing application under Section 27 of the Act has simply allowed the restoration of the amenity of electricity which was available to the defendant-opposite party and, therefore, it cannot be said that the learned trial court has exercised his jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Therefore, the instant revision is liable to be dismissed.
11. In result, the revision is dismissed at admission stage.