N NAGARAJ Vs. D S RAJESWARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by the tenant under S.50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) . It is directed against an order refusing to restore an essential supply or service of water, made in H.R.C. No. 488 of 1970 by the First Additional First Munsiff at Bangalore on 9-9-1970.

(2.) It would appear that the tenant was put in possession of the premises in September 1966. Later on he was regularly inducted by virtue of an order of allotment made by the Rent Controller on 23rd of October, 1967. When he was earlier inducted into possession there were arrears regarding water rates payable to the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as the Water Board) to the tune of Rs. 493.60 Ps. This arrears was further increased by the time he was inducted as allottee. It is also stated by Shri S. R. Rajashekhara Murthy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the premises consists of three tenements and only one oi them was allotted to the petitioner. Sometime thereafter, the Water Board disconnected the water supply for non-payment of arrears of water charges. Aggrieved by this action the petitioner approached the Court in the said H.R.C. petition. It would appear, that by some arrangement, between the landlord and the tenant, the arrears had to be shared by the tenants occupying the three tenements. The case of the landlord simply is that the charges should be borne by the tenants.

(3.) The learned Munsiff, came to the conclusion that the disconnection was not an act which could be attributed to the landlord, and therefore, the case did not fall within S.43 of the Rent Control Act. It is also observed by him that if the previous tenants had not paid the water charges, it was up to the petitioner to pay the same and secure restoration of water supply, and thereafter proceed against the other tenants for the recovery of their portion of the arrears of water charges. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has approached this Court.