( 1 ) THIS second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the act ) is directed against the Judgment and order dated 9/10/1986 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 29/9/1986 of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the appellant s application filed under Section 45 of the Act for restoration of the electricity supply.

( 2 ) THE appellant was inducted as a tenant by the respondent in a portion on ground floor of C-5 Anand Niketan New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000. 00 with effect from 1/12/1985. The charges for electricity were payable on the basis of sub meter reading and water charges were payable at Rs. 50. 00 per month. The appellant in his petition under Section 45 and application under Section 45 (3) of the Act which were filed on 22/9/1986 alleges that the respondent had been pressurising him to increase rent or to vacate the premises and did not accept the cheque on account of rent for July and August, 1986, that he got the electricity supply disconnected/withheld on 9/9/1986 for which a report was made to the officials of the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking; an official came to the spot to connect/correct the fault but the respondent did not allow him to do so. The appellant further alleges that he also complained to the police but no account of the influence of the respondent the police did not intervene. It is also alleged that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 6,000. 00 as security by " means of cheque to the respondent. He allege that he has paid upto date electric and water charges in cash, and the rent for July, August, 1986 was refused by the respondent. On these grounds, the appellant prayed for a direction to the respondent to restore the supply for electricity.

( 3 ) THE respondent in reply has pleaded that the petition is an abuse of the process of the court and is not maintainable that the appellant had previously filed a petition exactly on the same allegations which was pending before Mr. M. L. Mehta, Additional Rent Controller Delhi; that the appellant has deliberately concealed that fact and, therefore, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief. It is further alleged that the appellant has made false averments in his petition; he has not paid any amount on account of water and electricity (power and light) charges from 1/12/1985. He pleads that there were separate sub meters for supply of power and light to him; that there had been a separate meter for light for the use of the appellant and the respondent had a separate meter for power; but on account of misuse by the appellant, the meters for power and light as well as the sub-meters were got burnt; the sub meter was got replaced and again it was burnt on account of the misuse by the appellant. It is also alleged that the appellant has been using power in excess of the sanctioned load. It is denied that he got the electricity supply disconnected.

( 4 ) IN replication the appellant denies the allegations of the respondent and reiterates his allegations. He however admits that previously he had filed a petition under Section 45 of the Act on 20/9/1986. Notices of the main petition as well as the application under Section 45 (3) of the Act were issued for 22/9/1986 on which date the respondent appeared and the matter was adjourned to 24/9/1986 when an application for withdrawal of the case was filed by him and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 25/9/1986 by Sh. M. L. Mehta, Additional Rent Controller Delhi. The file of previous Suit No. 32 of 1984 is also before me. In his application for withdrawal, the appellant alleged that the name of KARTA of H. L. Mehra, HUF was wrongly mentioned as H. L. Mehra was already dead and in the eyes of law, the petition did not lie against a dead person and in view of the said circumstances, his petition was liable to be dismissed and, therefore, he prayed that the application be dismissed as withdrawn. Thus previous petition was