1. This is an appeal u/s 32 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an appellate order passed by the District Judge, Ujjain. under section 31 of the Act.

2. Facts giving to this appeal are these : The appellant is the landlady of the suit accommodation in which the respondent is tenant. By an application made by the tenant under section 10 and section 38 of the Act, it was complained that while she was occupying the disputed premises as a tenant her electricity supply was cut off and one of the rooms occupied by her as a tenant was demolished. She, accordingly, prayed that the supply of electricity be resumed, the demolised room be reconstructed and rent of the accommodation be re-fixed in the light of the aforesaid circumstances.

Held: According to the provisions of section 38 of the Act, there is a prohibition against the cutting off or withholding of essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the accommodation let to him. In the instant case, the first contention of the respondent was that one of the rooms let out on rent to her was deliberately pulled down and by this act has been deprived of the use of the entire room. In my opinion, if a part of the accommodation let out to a tenant is pulled down or demolished, it cannot be said that the tenant has been deprived of either any essential supply or service enjoyed as a tenant by him. In such a case, the tenant may pursue his remedy under the ordinary law but certainly by an application u/s 38 of the Act, the tenant cannot approach the Rent Controlling Authority for a direction that the part of the accommodation either demolished or pulled down be directed to be reconstructed and brought to its original condition by the land-lady. In the light of this view it has to be held; that the direction given by the Rent Controlling Authority and maintained in appeal by the learned District judge, for the reconstruction of the room which is said to have been pulled down by the appellant, cannot be maintained.

3. So far as the second contention of cutting off the supply of electricity is concerned, both the learned lower Courts have found as a fact that supply of electricity to the respondent by the appellant has been deliberately cut off. The prayer made for the restoration of the supply of electricity was, therefore, fully justified. So for as this finding of fact is concerned and which is based on appreciation of evidence, no second appeal under section 38 of the Act, can be entertained. Appeal partly allowed.