A landlord is duty-bound to keep the premises in good and tenantable repairs and cannot cut off or withhold essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant without just and sufficient cause.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 27th September 1989 of Shri O. P. Dwivedi. Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi whereby the Rent Control Tribunal bad set aside order dated 1st June 1989 of Shri Gurdeep Kumar, Additional Rent Controller passed under Section 45 (3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as -the Act ). The petitioner feeling aggrieved has come up before this court.

( 2 ) I have beared the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the lower court files and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me I have come to the following findings.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is a tenant of first floor in premises No. C-3, Friends Colony, New Delhi under the respondent and it had filed a petition under Section 45 of the Act for directions to the respondent-landlady to remove the obstructions in the water pipe line. and to restore and ensure normal water supply to the said premises through direct pipe line as well as through overhead water tank and booster pump on the allegations that the respondent-landlady wants the petitioner to vacate the said premises and has been prsesing respondent to do so but the petitioner has declined and in consequeace the respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner on the ground of bona fide personal requirement which petition wai pending as Petition No. E-213/88 in the court of Shri Gurdeep Kumar, Additional Rent Controller, which was being contested by the petitioner; that the respopdent being agitated, on 21st December, 1988 cut-off/stopped the water supply to the said premises and is also tempering with the regular supply of electricity since then with view to harass/compel the petitioner to vacate the said premises and/or enhance the rent.

( 4 ) THE said petition under Section 45 of the act is being contested by the respondent-landlady. The respondent in her reply has admitted the tenancy of first floor othe premises in dispute-as also the factum of filing of the eviction petition but has denied that she has cut off/withheld or stopped or obstructed water supply etc.

( 5 ) IT was in this main petition under Section 45 of the Act, that an application under Section 45 (3) of the Act was filed by the petitioner for grant of ad interim order directing respondent to remove the obstruction in water pipe line and restore and ensure normal water supply to the said premises which application was opposed by respondent but was ultimately allowed vide order dated 1st June, 1989 of the Additional Rent Controller.

( 6 ) FEELING aggrieved, the respondent appealed Rent Control Tribunal and the appeal was allowed and order dated 1st June, 1989 was set aside. Hence this petition

( 7 ) IT is not disputed that the petitioner is a tenant in first floor of House No. P-3, Friends Colony, New Delhi. It is also admitted that the petitioner was served by an overhead water tank for supply water in addition to a direct water connection. Similarly it is not disputed before me that there was an obstruction in the water supply from overhead tank. Even otherwise this fact is established from the report Of the loeal commissioner appointed by Additional Rent Controller. It is admitted likewise that an eviction petition has been filed before Additional Rent Controller by respondent against the petitioner. What has been contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner s that in these circumstances the Rent Control Tribunal was not justified in setting in aside order dated 1st June, 1989.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has contended that the respondent landlady had neither in any manner cut off nor obstructed the water supply of the petitioner from overhead tank nor the supply of water was cut off nor obstructed with a view to get the premises vacated nor for raising the rent and as such Section 45 (3) of the Act did not come into play.

( 9 ) AS regards the