BHASKAR MANUEL UGARGOL Vs. HENRITA IMMANUEL PUJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, by the tenant, is to revise an order of the First Addl Munsiff, Dharwar, made under Sec.43 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The petitioner and respondent-1 are occupying the adjoining buildings owned by respondent-2. The complaint of the petitioner was that the owner, with an evil design to harass him and make him to vacate the premises, instigated respondent-2 to close the only window of his kitchen as a result of which the kitchen has been rendered unfit for use since no light and air get into the kitchen and no smoke gets cut therefrom. The kitchen room, according to the petitioner, has become a dark room without any use to the petitioner. With these allegations, he prayed for an order against the respondents to re-open the window. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the application. Their primary contention was that the supply of light and air did not fall within the expression ' essential supply or service', as provided under Sec. 43 of the Act and, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be enquired into. The learned Munsiff accepted the objection and rejected the application. In this petition, the validity of that objection is called into question.

(3.) For the purpose of considering the question, it is necessary to have in mind the scope and effect of Section 43 of the Act. Section 43 of the Act, so far as it is relevant, provides :