PHIROZ ADI VANDREVALA Vs. SHANTI KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular first appeal against thejudgment in the suit 1046/94 and IA 4435/94 dated 13.5.1994. The appellant is theplaintiff and claims to be the tenant of the respondent. The suit is laid for grant ofpermanent injunction restraining the defendant (respondent) from interfering withthe peaceful possession of the premises (i.e. First floor, Barsati portion) bearing No.36-B, Malcha Marg, New Delhi, and for directing the defendant to allow access tothe electric fuse box, electric meters, water pump/motor as well as to the watermeters by giving duplicate key of the lock of the door of the rear verandah, accessto which is from the service lane, or in the alternative to permit the plaintiff to shiftthe electric fuse box, water booster pump and the electric and water meters to thefirst floor portion; for an injunction to defendant not to park his vehicles/cars infront of the stair case leading to the access to the premises of the plaintiff etc.

(2.) . In other words, the plaint not only relates to the continuance of amenitieslike the electricity and water but the principal relief is that the plaintiff's possessionmust be protected.

(3.) . The learned Single Judge referred to Section 45 of the Delhi Rent ControlAct,1958 which deals with the restoration of essential supplies or services cut off bythe landlord and held that if the Rent Controller has power to restore the amenitiesafter they are cut-off, he has also power to prevent the landlord from cutting themoff. The learned Single Judge referred to Section 50(1) of the Act which bars thejurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of certain matters which are within thepowers of the Rent Controller, viz. fixation of standard rent and eviction and "anyother matter which the controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide". Heheld that in view of Section 50 of the Rent Control Act, the Civil Court's jurisdictionis barred even in regard to restraining the landlord from cutting-off the amenities.The plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. (Admittedly, an eviction caseis pending before the Rent Controller). The plaintiff-tenant has preferred this appeal.