HEERA DEVI Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY FARRUKHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord has petitioned this Court after he is being directed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 27 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 to provide the certain amenities, which the tenant complained had been cut off by the landlord. The tenant resides on the first floor.

(2.) THE landlord attempted to make an issue that electricity and water had never been enjoyed by the tenant. Upon evidence which had been produced by both the landlord and tenant, the Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the tenant had the amenity of electricity and water both. So far as electricity is concerned, while the matter was pending before the Prescribed Authority the tenant resorted to having a consumer's connection of his own. Thus, in reference to this amenity the Prescribed Authority observed, that it was not necessary to issue any directions but the cost of providing for this amenity, the tenant would be entitled to adjust from rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month.

(3.) THE learned Prescribed Authority has perused every conceivable detail of the evidence which was produced before him by both parties. In fact, the matter remained pending in his Court for two years. The intention of Sections 26 and 27 of the Act imply that there is an element of urgency with which these matters should be dealt with. The Prescribed Authority has noticed the contention of the tenant that after February, 1985 the landlord had cut off or reduced the amenities of electricity and water. In so far as electricity is concerned a solution has been found by the tenant himself and this is not the subject-matter of this petition. As far as water is concerned, the tenant has been denied this. It is contention of the landlord that the tenant indeed never enjoyed the use of water, has not been accepted by the Prescribed Authority. The landlord contends that the house No. 140, which is in issue, received water from house Nos. 139 and 138 next to it and that the premises never had a connection from the municipal supply. If this is the case, then it is time that the landlord has a connection of water from the local body which supplies it. In so far as the landlord is concerned, she enjoys it on the ground floor from a certain faucet. This is on record, but the tenant on the first floor is denied this facility.