MAHABIR PRASAD CHANDANLAL Vs. MURARILAL KUNDANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order passed under section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955. Murarilal and another are tenants of Mahabir Prasad, in respect of a shop situate at Morena. The tenants made an application to the Rent Controlling Authority complaining that the landlord cut off electric supply which was enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the accommodation let out to them and this was actuated by the motive to enhance rent. His complaint has been found to be true by the Rent Controlling Authority as also by the Appellate Authority. The only grievance in this revision is that the facility to use electricity in the shop was provided by the landlord subsequent to the letting. It is urged by Shri Patankar that there being no contract between the parties that the landlord would supply electric energy to the tenants when the shop was let out to them, the subsequent arrangement between the landlord and the tenants did not form part of the contract between the parties and on that basis it is argued that section 8 (1) has no application here. That section enacts : No landlord, either himself or through any person, acting or purporting to act on his behalf shall, without just or sufficient cause, cut off or withhold any essential supplies or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the accommodation let out to him. To me the language of the above provision seems to be plain enough. The requirements of the section are : There must be the relationship of landlord and tenant. The essential supply or service which is cut off or withheld must have been enjoyed by the tenant. Such enjoyment must be in respect of the accommodation let out to the tenant.

(2.) SUCH cutting off or withholding must be without just or sufficient cause. In the present case (1), (3) and (4) are undisputed. Shri Patankar has not addressed me on any of these three elements. It is not his case that there was any justification for the cutting off. Now it remains to be considered whether the second ingredient is wanting. My answer is in the negative. There is no doubt that on the day that the electric supply was cut off by the landlord the tenants were in the enjoyment of the electric supply to the shop. Whether this enjoyment was available to the tenants from the very inception of the tenancy or it was by a subsequent arrangement is inconsequential. All that has to be seen under section 8, so far as the second ingredient is concerned, is whether on the date that the essential supply or service is cut off or withheld, the tenant was in its enjoyment or not. Of course, such enjoyment must be lawful. Here it is not the landlord's case that the tenants were not in the lawful enjoyment of electric supply on the date that it was cut off. I do not see what difference it would make whether this facility was given to the tenants on the date that they were let in, or that it was furnished afterwards. It also does not matter whether the rent payable by the tenants included electric charges, or they were paid separately. Since in this case the tenants were admittedly in the lawful enjoyment of electric supply on the day that the landlord cut it off all the requirements of section 8 (1) of the Act are fulfilled. It is inconsequential whether electric charges were paid by the tenant as part of rent itself or separate from it. The revision is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 15.