Landlords cannot disconnect essential supplies or services without just and sufficient cause, and alternative remedies available under the Rent Act must be considered before seeking extraordinary remedies.

JUDGMENT

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is maintained by the petitioner against the order dated 29. 10. 2015, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, H. P. , in Rent Appeal No. 27-S/14 of 2015, whereby order dated 29. 11. 2014, passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No. 1, Shimla, in Rent Petition No. 23-2 of 2014 has been set aside.

2. Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present petition are that the present respondent/tenant has filed a petition, under Section 11 of the Rent Act, against the petitioner/landlady qua the rented premises, i. e. shop, situated near Police Station, BCS, New Shimla, wherein it has been averred that the respondent/tenant is running a mobile repair shop in the said premises, under the name and style of M/s Anjali Cell Care. The monthly rent of the said shop is Rs. 7,705/- per month. As per the respondent/tenant, the premise was rented out in the year 2009, on the basis of oral agreement between the parties. Alongwith the petition, the respondent/tenant has also moved an application under Section 11(3) of the Rent Act, wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner/landlady is harassing and coercing him to vacate the rented premises and on 18. 07. 2017, the landlady has cut of the electricity connection from the rented premises. It has been further alleged in the application that without electricity supply, the respondent/tenant is suffering from financial loss of Rs. 2,500/- per day and, therefore, the electricity supply may kindly be ordered to be restored.

3. The petitioner/landlady resisted the application by filing reply and admitted therein that the applicant is running mobile repair shop in the name and style of M/s Anjali Care Centre. It has been further averred in the reply that no electricity connection or fitting has ever been provided to the respondent/tenant by her and the applicant himself has done electricity fitting in the tenanted premises and there is no independent meter in the said premises, as such, she is unable to provide electricity to the respondent/tenant. Lastly she prayed for dismissal of the application.

4. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 29. 11. 2014, dismissed the application, so filed by the respondent/tenant. Subsequently, the respondent/tenant preferred the appeal under Section 24 of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act before the learned lower Appellate Court, which was allowed and order dated 29. 11. 2014 has been set aside and petitioner/landlady was directed to restore the amenity of electricity to the premises of the tenant. Hence the present petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

6. Mr. Jagmohan Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner/landlady has argued that learned lower Appellate Court without there being any right in favour of the tenant and without appreciating the facts, which have come on record to their true perspective allowed the appeal, and, therefore, the order passed by the learned lower Appellate Court in appeal is required to be set aside. He has further argued that there was no electricity provided to the tenant by the landlady and so there is no question for disconnecting the same. Further the tenant is not paying any rent nor into an agreement for the fixed period, therefore, the landlady is not liable to provide electricity to him. On the other hand, Ms. Reena Sharma, Advocate, has argued that the remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 24(5) of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act and the present petition is thus not maintainable. She has further argued that from 2014, the electricity of the tenant has been disconnected by the landlady and in spite of the tenant paying rent regularly, which is quite high, the electricity has not been provided to him, so as to harass him intentionally, therefore, well reasoned judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court needs no interference.