WPMS 2513/2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Bhatt, the learned counsel for the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners is, that they are the owners and landlords of the building in question, which was let out to the opposite party. The learned counsel contended that the application moved by the opposite party under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, was patently erroneous and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the building in question was a new building and was outside the operation of the Act. The learned counsel contended that this fact was not considered by the Prescribed Authority while allowing the application of the opposite party. The Court finds that only a vague averment was made by the petitioners before the court below. No details as to when the building was constructed or when the building came in use, has been indicated. On the other hand, the Court finds that admittedly, the petitioners have let out a portion of the building to the opposite party and admitted him as a tenant, but, have now filed the suit for eviction. Pending the eviction proceedings, the petitioners have disconnected the electricity connection. Even assuming that the Act of 1972 is not applicable on the premises in question, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order for the simple reason that the landlord when he admits the tenant in the premises in question, is required to provide certain amenities and, one such amenity is, electricity. The action of the petitioners in disconnecting the electricity connection in order to harass the opposite party and force him to vacate the premises, cannot be accepted. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 01-12-2011 SP