LALITA PRADHAN Vs. PURNA CHANDRA PATTNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by against the direction of the District Forum finding deficiency in service.

(2.) Appellant No.1 is owner of a house at Basanti Colony in Rourkela. Ground floor of the house was let out to the United Commercial Bank of which complainant is the Manager who was staying in the premises let out. House rent was fixed at Rs.850.00 per month exclusive electricity and water charges as per letter dt.1/12/1988. Appellants were residing on the first floor of the house. Tenancy was to expire at the end of December, 1991. On 5/7/1991, appellant No.1 claimed house rent @ Rs.1,000.00 per month and communicated their desire to get the house vacated in the event of failing to pay the rent at the enhanced rate. On 14/7/1991, the land lady and her husband (appellant Nos.1 and 2 respectively) disconnected the electric supply and stopped the water supply to the rented apartment in spite of repeated requests not to do so. Thus, inconvenience was caused to the complainant and his family members. Finding no way out, complainant was compelled to vacate the house on 31/7/1991 and filed complaint on 28/9/1991 claiming compensation on account of deficiency in service.

(3.) Tenant of a house is a consumer to whom service of accommodation is provided by the land lord on receipt of rent. There would be deficiency in service in case the benefits given out to be provided for use of the house as agreed upon, are not maintained or provided. A person enjoying accommodation with permission of person hiring the house is a beneficiary and is thus, a consumer having right to ventilate his/her grievance through the redressal agency alleging deficiency in service.