VEERA RAI Vs. S P SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Be referring order dated 8th October 1982, this second appeal directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 4th March 1982 has been referred to a Division Bench. The question before the court is the meaning to be given to section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for the purpose of the restoring certain amenities which have been taken away from the tenant.

(2.) The tenant had applied under Section 45 (1) of the Act staling that he had been deprived of the use of a water closet, bath room and kitchen which formed part of this tenancy and the same should be restored. An application for interim relief was moved under section 45 (3) of the Act pending the enquiry.

(3.) The learned Additional Rent Controller found that the tenant had been let out a shop along with a bath room, W.C. and a small room at the back and hence he passed an interim order under Section 45 (3). The landlady's appeal to the Tribunal failed. The decision of the Tribunal was based on the decision of this court in Smt. Naresh Rani v. Hari Dutt, 1972 Rent Control Reporter 407. It was there held by B.C. Misra, J. that a bathroom was an essential supply within the meaning of Section 45 (1) of the Act. Before the learned single judge, in appeal, the learned counsel relief upon the decision of Mysore High Court in Savithramma v. Ramdas, 1973 Rent Control Reporter 839, wherein it was held that under the Mysore Rent Control Act, section 43 of that Act was not available for restoring possession of a kitchen, bath and latrine to a tenant from whom forcible possession has been taken by the ndlord. Various other decisions were brought to the notice of the learned single judge. As there was some conflict between the decisions, this case has been placed before us.