MAN MOHAN ALBERT Vs. SHAKIR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 is running tailoring shop since 40 years as tenant of Appellant. Admittedly, there is no electric connection in the suit accommodation. Respondent No. 1 applied for new electric connection, was opposed by the Appellant, Respondent No. 2 refused to supply electric energy. Therefore, Respondent No. 1 made an application under Section 38 of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Rent Controlling Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the RCA"). The above application was allowed. An appeal preferred there against before the First Appellate Court was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10th September, 2008, hence this appeal under Section 32 of the Act.

(2.) Shri Somnath Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit: admittedly, there is no electric connection in the suit shop enjoyed by the tenant. In the absence of cutting off or withholding supply of electric energy by the Appellant, the learned RCA has no jurisdiction to pass the order under Section 38 of the Act, therefore, the judgment and decree impugned as well as the order passed by learned RCA are perverse and deserves to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, leaned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 would submit that the electricity is a necessity for proper enjoyment of accommodation and the words "enjoyed by the tenant" would mean right to enjoy the supply of electricity.