THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1186 of 2006 Dated:- 20th December, 2011 Between:- K.Nageswar Rao …Petitioner AND Ramnath Tammarwar and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1186 of 2006 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the judgment dated 01.12.2005 passed in R.A.No.15 of 2003 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (‘the appellate authority’, for brevity), whereby and whereunder, the order dated 19.04.2002 passed in R.C.No.377 of 2000 by the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad (‘the Rent Controller’, for brevity) was confirmed. 2. The petitioner herein is the petitioner and the respondents herein are the respondents before both the Courts below and they will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Rent Controller for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner filed R.C. before the Rent Controller under Section 14 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, seeking the relief of restoration of amenities of water facility and to permit him to use the WC and bath in the floor in his occupation in premises bearing municipal No.4-5-645/646 (Portion) situated at Kutbiguda, Hyderabad (the schedule premises). His case is that he is the tenant of the schedule premises since 1997 and that initially the rent was Rs.25/- per month exclusive of water and electricity charges and that subsequently the rent was enhanced to Rs.175/- per month exclusive of water and electricity charges. His main contention is that the respondents are not providing minimum amenities of water and are also obstructing the use of available toilet and bathrooms. It is also his contention that there was a settlement between the parties and in spite of said settlement, the respondents are obstructing him in his using the amenities. 4. The respondents filed counter and admitted the petitioner as their tenant and the agreed rent is Rs.175/- per month. The respondents’ main case is that they never disconnected water and electricity connection to the petitioner. However, the respondents’ case is that they have got permission to demolish the schedule premises and to make new construction as the structure is of 100 years old. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the only point that was framed by the Rent Controller for consideration was whether a direction can be given to the landlords/respondents to restore the amenity of water and permit the use of bath and toilets by the petitioner. 6. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 and one G.Mallinath was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced except examining the second respondent – Satish Tammawar as R.W.1. 7. The learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the R.C. holding that there are other tenants in the schedule premises and that the bathroom and WC are common for all the tenants and that the petitioner failed to explain as to how he alone is being restrained from using the WC and toilet in the first floor and that P.W.2 also deposed that other tenants were getting the water from outside only as the water coming from the tap is not sufficient. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority, on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, dismissed the appeal observing that mere keeping the toilet in the first floor under lock and key does not amount to obstructing the tenant from using it and that there are other toilets on the upstairs and they are common for all and that if really the petitioner/tenant is obstructed from enjoying the basic amenities from the year 1996, how he could continue in possession of the schedule premises without any basic amenities like WC and drinking water has not been explained by the tenant. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this revision. 8. I have gone through the entire record. Water and WC are the basic amenities for any person. Even if the petitioner is obstructed in using the same for a single day, the same amounts to interfering with the enjoyment of the basic amenities. No landlord can be permitted to interfere with the enjoyment of the basic amenities by a tenant. In the instant case, both the Courts below have failed to understand the contention of the petitioner. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was not properly appreciated. Both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that R.W.1 himself admitted that toilet near the staircase of the first floor is still available for use by all the tenants and the tenant is entitled to draw water from the tap connection provided in the ground floor. Thus, it is clear that the findings of both the Courts below are perverse and are not based on evidence. 9. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, which is, accordingly, set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as prayed for, but however, without any order as to costs. However, if the respondent wants to demolish the schedule premises and starts new construction, this order will not come in his way of making any new construction, subject to the statutory right of the petitioner to get accommodation in the newly constructed building. ________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 20th December, 2011 Bvv