ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. PARVEEN ATWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 08.01.2016 the following order was passed :-

(2.) Today learned counsel for the respondent has very fairly stated that in view of the concern of the learned counsel for the petitioner respondent would also undertake to conclude the evidence within two months. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has still insisted that the matter be heard on merits because as per him Section 10 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 does not envisage that the final relief can be granted by way of interim relief.

(3.) In my opinion the argument is not logical. Supposing a landlord has given the first floor of his house to a tenant for residence for his family and on one fine day he cuts the water supply. Obviously the tenant would move an application under Section 10 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. In these circumstances if it is held that water connection can not be given by way of interim relief it would mean that the tenant would die of thirst because the main case could not be decided and the land lord would be able to obliquely achieve his purpose of getting his premises vacated by cutting off the water supply.