Supply of water by the landlord to the tenant is an essential service and the delay in making the application for restoration of water supply is not fatal.

1. THIS revisional application was heard-in-part on 27th August, 1992. The matter again appeared on 4th September, 1992. On that day I directed the learned advocate for the petitioner to intimate the opposite party that the matter was taken up by me for hearing and it would be heard exparte if he did not choose to appear on the next day of hearing.

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT cards along with letters have been filed by Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. It appears from the same that the intimation has duly been received by the opposite party. Let the acknowledgement receipts and the letters addressed to the opposite party by Mr. Roy be kept on record. In spite of such service no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party to oppose the revisional application.

3. IN view of above, I have no other alternative than to take up this matter in absence of the opposite party.

4. IN a suit for eviction filed by the opposite party against the petitioner on the ground of reasonable requirement and default, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the tenant petitioner for a direction upon the opposite party to restore water connection in the suit premises. The allegation that was made by the petitioner in the application for injunction was that the opposite party illegally and fraudulently interfered with the user of essential services by disconnecting water connection from the tenanted portion of the petitioner after removing the hand-pump of the sub-tenanted portion of the petitioner. It appears from the record that a commissioner was appointed for this purpose. The trial court rejected the application for injunction only on the ground of delay that is the petitioner not having applied for restoration of water supply after two years of disconnection of water supply, the petitioner is not entitled to an order of injunction. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court by am order dated 17th November, 1992 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 67 of 1990 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by, inter-alia, holding that it would appear from the report of the commissioner that the petitioner was having water supply in the suit premises and that in view of the admitted position that the application for injunction was made in the court after two years of such disconnection, the petitioner was not entitled to an order or restoration of the water supply.

5. I have heard Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have gone through the impugned orders. I have also gone through the application for restoration of water supply. I have also considered the commissioner's report - the substantial portion of the field note is reproduced below:

"I find that a tap water line (in G. I. pipe) run from north to south and that ends within the bath room and within the bathroom the said pipe stands about one feet high there is an opening. I do not find any hand pump in the bath room. The Ld. Lawyer for the defendant submits that the said water is running from the water reservoir of the plaintiffs portion and further submits that there is a water reservoir just northern side of the defendant's tenanted portion and further submits before me that there was/is a common user of bathroom just northern side of the tenanted portion and there is a and the same is fixed by a hinck by the plaintiff and also submits that there was a hand pump in the said common bath room and the same is removed by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs lawyer submits that the water line is very old and damaged, the water line and the water connection had been chocked/damaged 20 (twenty) years before. There was no provision of hand pump in the tenanted portion of the defendant.

6. IT appears from the commissioner's report that he could not find anything as submitted by the learned lawyer for the petitioner because he only inspected the said holding except