RAMESHWAR PRASAD BHARGAVA Vs. IST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A tenant in premises at 1079, Gadder Wali Gali, Dusarpara, Bhargava Street, Mathura, found that his electricity and water has been denied by the landlord. Consequently he took recourse to an action under sections 26 and 27 of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 complaining before the Prescribed Authority that water and electricity are basic needs, and if the landlord would not restore, he may be permitted to have these amenities at the landlord's expense. The landlord was summoned by the Prescribed Authority to answer the complaint of the tenant. The defence of the landlord was that he was not a tenant and the present complaint has been filed by a person who is occupying the premises as a licencee. The Prescribed Authority examined the issues before him and prima facie came to the conclusion that there was a contract of tenancy and the landlord has accepted rent as early as June 1976 and in any case the landlord has accepted on record that there was a relationship of a landlord-tenant since 1978. The next contention of the landlord was that the electricity charges were to be paid by the tenant and as the latter had not so he was within his rights to have cut off the amenity of electricity.

(2.) THE contention of the landlord before the Prescribed Authority, that the tenant was required to pay electricity charges was not accepted and the other submission the amenity ought not to be provided, as it never had been, was also rejected.

(3.) EVEN the other contention of the landlord, that he was never provided the facility of water to the tenant, is misconceived. The law enjoins that a tenant is atleast entitled to basic amenities; water is a basic human need. There can be no issue that water is not a basic need. No tenant can be deprived of it.