Civil Revision No.1753 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1753 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:15.11.2011 Krishan Abhey ....Petitioner Versus Jai Bhagwan and another ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. D.C.Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) C.M.No.24163-CII of 2011 After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, prayer made in this application is allowed and order dated 05.09.2011 is recalled and the instant revision petition is restored to its original number. Civil Revision No.1753 of 2011 This is landlord's revision petition challenging the impugned orders of the authorities below whereby an application filed under Section 10 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 has been partly allowed and the respondent-tenant was allowed to take water from the ground floor. Civil Revision No.1753 of 2011 (O&M) 2 The respondent-tenant has filed the instant application on the averments that he was the tenant on the second floor of the house in question and was either getting the water from the tap fitted at the said floor or was fetching the water supply from the ground floor and nobody was interfering in the enjoyment of this basic amenity of the respondent-tenant. It was his further case that there was only one water meter in the house and the same was installed at ground floor and the bill of the same was charged alongwith his electricity bill and he was making the payment of the same. However, the landlord (petitioner) was interested to evict him without following process of law and therefore interfered in the water and electricity supply to the rented portion. The respondent moved complaint to the police authorities for interference. He also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction alongwith an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC against the landlord which is pending. Interim stay was granted in favour of the petitioner restraining water and electricity supply to the top floor of the respondent. The petitioner had tempered with the water and electricity supply, he also moved a complaint to the authorities against non-supply of water to the rented portion of the respondent. A lineman checked the water pressure and reported that the water pressure in the adjoining house was quite normal and was reaching to the second floor and even in the house of the respondent, the water pressure upto the water meter was found normal and sufficient to reach to the top floor. The respondent No.2 had permitted the installation of taps in outside verandha. However, the petitioner was not providing the water facility to the Civil Revision No.1753 of 2011 (O&M) 3 respondent. Hence, the instant petition was filed. The said application was contested by the petitioner- landlord stating that the application was false and vexatious. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Rent Controller found that the respondent was entitled to the prayer made in the application. While dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid order, the Appellate Authority observed that the supply of water amenity to the respondent was basic amenity to be provided by the landlord and concluded that the landlord cannot stop the respondent from taking water from the ground floor from the existing tap as per earlier practice till the arrangement of alternative tap is made in the outside verandha. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the respondent is a tenant and is entitled to get the water supply. However, his contention before this Court is that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has ever interfered in the supply of water to the respondent which was being supplied to him by way of tap which is fitted on the second floor and if due to low pressure of the water supply etc. the water is not reaching to the second floor, he could not be blamed for the same. However, the petitioner could not dispute the fact that in such a situation respondent was entitled to fetch water from the ground floor tap. In these circumstances, no error can be found in the orders passed by the authorities below which are just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Civil Revision No.1753 of 2011 (O&M) 4 Needless to say, the respondent-tenant is liable to pay for the charges of the water consumed by him as per the Government Rules. Dismissed. November 15, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE