SUDESH MEHTA Vs. BHAGCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents Bhagchand and Mohanlal are the tenants of Shrimati Sudesh Mehta, in respect of shop No. 4 situate at Kududand (near R.T.O. Office), Bilaspur on a monthly rent of Rs. 46/-. The respondents tenants have filed an application under Section 38 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for taking suitable action against the landlady who has closed the door of the back side of the suit premises. The Rent Controlling Authority, Bilaspur as well as the IV Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur, found the landlady guilty of withholding the essential supply or service and has directed the landlady to make arrangement for keeping the back door open, failing which the tenants shall get the door opened with the police help and the costs incurred in that behalf be deducted from rent amount.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the injury as reported by the tenants, does not come within the purview of S.38 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and as such the impugned order is without jurisdiction. It is further contended that just after the back door, the landlady does not have any open land and as such it has been rightly closed.

(3.) The words 'essential supply or service' not only include use of electricity, water, bath room or latrine, but also include the use of entire suit premises inclusive of windows and doors; windows for ventilation and doors for ingress and egress and as such it does come within the meaning of essential service. The landlord/landlady, if without any just and sufficient cause, closes the window or door which forms part of essential supply or service for the enjoyment of the tenanted premises, he/she is guilty within the meaning of Section 38 of the Act and such an act on the part of landlord/landlady does constitute withholding of essential supply or service.