1. - Heard learned Counsel for the.parties.

2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a tenant and respondent No. 5 is a land lord. Without taking note of the dispute between the landlord and the tenant's rights and about the arrears it was considered proper by this Court that the respondent No. 3 and 4 may be directed to give water and electricity connection after realisation of the dues if any. The land-lord does not come into picture at all. I think that every tenant has a right to have the electricity and water and that right cannot be denied in the modern times. The respondent No. 3 and 4 are directed to restore and maintain the connection of the petitioner, if they pay regularly the electricity and water dues. The consent of the land-lord in the matter of giving a connection to the tenant is not all necessary. It is the occupier who is getting a connection. The question that there should be the consent of the land-lord is against the norms of the present society and no law provides that there should be a consent of the land-lord. Even if there are administrative instructions they will not come into the way and the tenant will have a right of connection directly