SAVITHRAMMA Vs. RAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is by the landlord against the order passed by the V Addl. I Munsiff, Bangalore in HRC. No.1024 of 1968 made under S.43 of the Mysore Kent Control Act, 1961 (hereINAFTER referred to as the Act).

(2.) The respondent is the tenant of the suit premises, whose landlord is the petitioner. The respondent filed an application under S.43 of the Act praying for an order directing the petitioner to restore the water supply and also to restore possession of kitchen, bath room and latrine. The case of the respondent is that he has taken the premises from the former owner one Sathyanarayana Setty about' 7 years back on a monthly rental of Rs.20, that the rental of Rs.25 is inclusive of water charges, that the petitioner has purchased the premises from Sathyararayana Setty on the 24th of January, 1968, that the premises leased to the respondent which is on the second fioor of the building, consists of one hall, one room, kitchen and a bath room with latrine attached, and that the petitioner has without just and sufficient cause cut off the water supply to the premises and took forcible possession of the kitchen, the bath room and the latrine. The application was resisted by the petitioner, who inter alia contended that the rent of Rs.25 payable by the respondent is not inclusive of the water charges, that as the respondent, and other tenants did not pay the water charges, the supply was cut off by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, for which he is not responsible, that the portion let to the respondent consists of only one room and one kitchen and that there is no hall or both room with latrine attached and that the respondeiit was using the common latrine and common bath room located in the first floor of the building and that he has not taken forcible possession of the kitchen, the bath room and the latrine as alleged by the respondent and that the provisions of S.43 of the Act are not applicable for securing restoration of possession of the kitchen, bath room and the latrine, as they are not essential services.

(3.) The learned Munsiff, after considering the material placed by the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has, without jusc or sufficient cause, cut off the water supply to the premises and that the petitioner has also taken, forcible possession of the kitchen, the bath room and the latrine and that therefore the petitioner is guilty of withholding essential services without any just or sufficient cause for doing so. The learned Munsiff directed the petitioner to restore water supply to the premises and to restore possession of the kitchen, the bath room and the latrine within 15 days from the date of the order, failing which the petitioner was required to pay Rs.10 for each day during the period of default till restoration of the amenities. The landlord has challenged the aforesaid order in this revision petition.