JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, C J. :- This revision is filed by the landlord against t the tenant. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller, Kullu on August 30,1999 in R.P. No.7/98 and confirmed by the Appellate authority, Kullu in C.A. No. 104 of 1999 on May 1, 2001.

2. The petitioner is the landlord whereas the respondent is the tenant. In proceedings for eviction by the landlord against the tenant, an application was made under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the tenant complaining that the landlord had contravened the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act and has cut off/withheld essential service. The case of the tenant was that a roof was removed by the landlord and since it can be said to be "essential service" as defined in the said section, interim relief was necessary.

3. Sub-section (1) of Section 11 declares that 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 building or rented land let out to him. If the landlord commits breach of the said provision, it is open to the tenant to make a complaint by submitting an application to the Conroller. Sub-section (3) empowers the Rent Controller, if he is satisfied that the essential supply or service was cut off or withheld by the landlord with a view to compel the tenant to vacate the premises or to pay an enhanced rent, to make an order directing the landlord to restore the amenities immediately pending inquiry referred to in sub-section (4). Sub-section (4) speaks of inquiry and passing of the appropriate order after hearing the parties. In the instant case, the allegation of the tenant was that the roof was removed by the landlord, which had caused serious prejudice to the tenant and since it can be said to be essential service, interim direction was necessary. The Rent Controller, after considering the allegations and counter-allegations, allowed the application observing that it was established that the landlord with mala fide intention removed the slates of the roof of the premises in question with a view primarily to compel the tenant to vacate the. premises and, hence, an order was passed directing the landlord to restore the said amenity pending inquiry referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 11.

4. Being aggrieved by the above, order the landlord, present petitioner before this Court, preferred an appeal before the Appellate authority. The Appellate Authority, considering the relevant provisions of the Act as also some of the decisions cited at the Bar, held that the order passed by the Rent Controller did not determine the rights of the parties and it was merely an interlocutory direction to restore the amenity of the demises premises and consequently the appeal was not maintainable. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed on that ground. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Notice was issued, pursuant to which the respondent appeared, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Three contentions were raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord. Firstly, the Appellate Authority has committed an error of law as well as of jurisdiction in holding that the order was merely interlocutory in nature and, hence, the appeal was not maintainable. Secondly, even on merits the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority were wrong in holding that the basic amenities or essential service had been cut off by the petitioner-landlord and, hence, direction was necessary and thirdly that in any case the Rent Controller has exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering replacement of the roof even on the part, which was occupied by the landlord.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent-tenant, on the other hand, supported the order passed by th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document