( 1 ) BE referring order dated 8th October 1982, this second appeal directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 4th March 1982 has been referred to a Division Bench. The question before the court is the meaning to be given to section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for the purpose of the restoring certain amenities which have been taken away from the tenant.

( 2 ) THE tenant had applied under Section 45 (1) of the Act staling that he had been deprived of the use of a water closet, bath room and kitchen which formed part of this tenancy and the same should be restored. An application for interim relief was moved under section 45 (3) of the Act pending the enquiry.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller found that the tenant had been let out a shop along with a bath room, W. C. and a small room at the back and hence he passed an interim order under Section 45 (3 ). The landlady s appeal to the Tribunal failed. The decision of the Tribunal was based on the decision of this court in Smt. Naresh Rani v. Hari Dutt, 1972 Rent Control Reporter 407. It was there held by B. C. Misra, J. that a bathroom was an essential supply within the meaning of Section 45 (1) of the Act. Before the learned single judge, in appeal, the learned counsel relief upon the decision of Mysore High Court in Savithramma v. Ramdas, 1973 Rent Control Reporter 839, wherein it was held that under the Mysore Rent Control Act, section 43 of that Act was not available for restoring possession of a kitchen, bath and latrine to a tenant from whom forcible possession has been taken by the ndlord. Various other decisions were brought to the notice of the learned single judge. As there was some conflict between the decisions, this case has been placed before us.

( 4 ) WE may now turn to Section 45 (1) of the Act. It reads :

"cutting off or withholding essential supply or service- (1) No landlord either himself or through any person purporting to act on his behalf shall without just and sufficient cause cut off or withhold any essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the premises let to him. "

( 5 ) WE can also now refer to sub-section (3) which states :

" (3) If the Controller is satisfied that the essential supply or service was cut offer withheld by the landlord with a view to compel the tenant to vacate the premises or to pay an enhance rent, the Controller may pass an order directing the landlord to restore the amenities immediately, pending the inquiry referred to in subsection (4 ). "

"explanation-AN interim order may be pasted under this sub-section without giving notices to the landlord. "

( 6 ) THE real point in this case is the meaning to be given to the terms, essential supply and service occurring in the Section. There can be two approaches to this point, An essential supply or service may be something additional to the premises themselves, such as electricity or water or light or passage. The essential supply or service may also include part of the tenancy premises.

( 7 ) THERE can be no doubt that if electricity or water is supplied via the connection of the landlord i. e. the electric connection is common or the water connection is common, then the tenant has right to immediate relief if such electricity or water is cut off. But what happens if the access to the premises is cut off. Suppose a landlord locks the outer door and does not permit the tenant to enter. Suppose the landlord closes the passage through which the tenant has to enter the portion of the house. A hundred and one problems can be faced by a tenant if the landlord chooses to cause inconvenience to the tenant so as to deprive him of the proper utilisation of the tenanted premises. It is only in the choice of the narrower or broader concept that conflict exists.

( 8 ) LN the case of Smt. Naresh Rani v. Hari Dutt, 1972 Rent Control Reporter 407, decided by B. C. Misra, J. In the judgment the learned judge referred to Regis Pr