Landlords are bound to keep the accommodation in good and tenantable repairs and cannot withhold essential services without just and sufficient cause.

A.R. Tiwari, J.

1. This appeal, preferred under Section 32 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'The Act') Has been directed against the order dated 4-3-1993 passed by the IInd Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in M. A. No. 2/93 thereby maintaining the order dated 22-1-1993 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore in Case No. A-90(4)/47/92.

2. The order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority and affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court is to the effect that the appellants should restore the essential service temporarily after effecting the repairs in the accommodation used as latrine and bath-room.

3. The matrix in short is that the respondent is the tenant in House No. 8 Palasia Hana (New Palasia Street No. 4), Indore. The appellants became the landlords of the respondent after purchase of the suit-house by a registered sale-deed dated 5-11-1991. The relationship of landlord and tenant is thus not in dispute. In October, 1992, the appellants started construction in the suit-house. On 5-11-1992, the employees of the Indore Municipal Corporation demolished the construction commenced by the appellants. In the process of this demolition, the rear wall of the latrine and bath-room was also damaged. The respondent filed an application under Section 38 of the Act before the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore and also moved an application for interim relief seeking immediate restoration of the essential service as regards the latrine and bath-room. The Respondent also filed Civil Suit No. 225-A/92 before the IXth Civil Judge Class-I, Indore for permanent injunction against the apprehended new construction in the tenanted premises. The order of status quo was passed on 19-11-1992 which is still operative. The defence of the appellans in this civil suit is that the demolition was effected by the Indore Municipal Corporation on 1 2-11-1992 and they have thus, not withheld or cut off any essential supply or services. The interim relief before the Rent Controlling Authority was also resisted on the ground that the respondent is a defaulter in payment of rent. The Rent Controlling Authority considering the material, produced by the parties, and on hearing them passed the order dated 22-1 -1993 to the following effect :-

a) The respondent shall immediately pay the arrears of rent to the appellants and the appellants shall effect repairs temporarily to the accommodation used as latrine and bath-room within four days so that this essential service is available to the respondent and his family.

b) The landlords shall produce the accounts of expenditure of this work so that the final order in this behalf could be passed after enquiry at the time of decision of the main application.

Aggrieved by this order, the landlords preferred the aforesaid appeal. This appeal was, however, dismissed with slight modification. It was directed that in case the appellants failed to restore the essential service as directed, then the respondent would be free to get the repairs done and producee the accounts before the Rent Controlling Authority for direction of the adjustment of such amount against the rent. The landlord-appellants have preferred this appeal.

4. I have heard Shri K. G. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri R. S. Garg, learned counsel for the respondent" and have perused the record.

5. The main attack against the impugned order is as under :-

(a) The tenant is in arrears of rent and as such, he was precluded from initiating such a proceeding. It was thus not a case of withholding of any essential service without just and sufficient cause. The Respondent did not choose to pay the rent despite the direction made by the Rent Controlling Authority.

(b) The order of the lower Appellate Court was contrary to law and usage having the force of law.

(c) The Act of demolition was not the Act of the appellants. This was done by the Indore Municipal Corporation. Hence, the provisions of Section 38 of the