R.L. Khurana, J.@mdashThe Petitioner before this Court is the landlady of a shop in ward No. 3, House No. 3417 at Una, while the Respondent is the tenant of the said shop under the landlady on payment of Rs. 300/- per month. The parties are hereinafter referred to accordingly.
2. The tenant approached the learned Rent Controller (Senior Sub Judge), Una, u/s 11 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short the Act), complaining that the landlady with a view to harass him and force him to vacate the tenanted shop during night hours, when the shop was closed has constructed two walls in the verandah as points AB and CD, as depicted in the site plan attached with the petition, as a result of which light and passage to the shop has been obstructed. He accordingly prayed for the restoration of the amenities of light and passage.
3. The tenant has averred that due to construction of the walls the passage providing ingress and outgress to his customers, as weir the natural light and air has been blocked due to which he was facing great hardship. He also prayed for grant of interim relief pending disposal of the petition.
4. The landlady resisted the petition. She denied the correctness of the site plan annexed to the petition. The construction of the wall was admitted and it was pleaded that such wall was raised for enclosing the passage in order to avoid inconvenience and nuisance to the Petitioner in carrying the construction material through the stairs for the proposed construction of the first floor.
5. The learned Rent Controller after visiting the spot, in exercise of the powers vested in him under sub-section 3 of Section 11 of the Act, on 28.6.1999, granted interim relief in favour of the tenant by directing the landlady to remove the walls, constructed by her, within seven days from the date of order, failing which the tenant would be entitled to get such walls removed at his own expenses and to recover such expenses from the landlady.
6. The landlady went up in appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, who dismissed her appeal vide order dated 17. 11. 1999 and upheld the order dated 28.6.1999 of the learned Rent Controller granting interim relief in favour of the tenant.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the landlady is before this Court by way of the present revision petition u/s 24(5) of the Act.
8. Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act which empowers the Rent Controller to pass an interim order for the restoration of the amenities pending inquiry of the petition made u/s (2) of Section 11 of the Act, reads:
If the Controller is satisfied that the essential supply or service was cut off or withheld by the landlord with a view to compelling the tenant to vacate the premises or to pay an enhanced rent, the Controller may pass an order directing the landlord to restore the amenities immediately pending the inquiry referred to in Sub-section (4).
Explanation.�An interim order may be passed under this sub-section without giving notice to the landlord." (Emphasis supplied)
9. A bare perusal of the above provision shows that before a discretion is exercised by the Rent Controller to grant interim relief in favour of the tenant, he has to record his satisfaction that the essential supply or service has been cut off or withheld by the landlord with a view:
(a) to compelling the tenant to vacate the tenanted premises ; or
(b) to pay an enhanced rent.
10. Unless the Rent Controller records his satisfaction as to the cutting off or withholding of the essential supply or service by the landlord on any one of the two grounds as aforesaid, no interim relief can be granted to the tenant.
11. In the present case, the learned Rent Controller, while granting the interim relief in favour of the tenant has observed:
...In the present case the Respondent has admitted the Petitioner to be tenant in the demised premises. The Respondent has also admitted that she had constructed two walls in the verandah so that there may not be any obstruction in the business of the Petitioner in order to carry out the construction material. This Court has also visited the spot which is just in front of the Mini Secretariate where the courts are located. The shop of the Petitioner is situated just below stair case and its width is about 1-1-1/2 meters and after installation of the photostate machine there was hardly space for one person to enter the shop. However, after the closing of the verandah in front of the shop with the walls whole of the shop has become useless and dark and no business could be carried out. This fact has been also established from the admission of the Respondent as she has admitted the construction of the walls. Therefore, the essential services i.e. light AIR and passage to the shop have been disrupted due to the construction of the above walls and the Petitioner is entitled to the same by removing the walls which have been constructed....
12. In granting the interim relief, the learned Rent Controller has failed to record his satisfaction that the essential supply or service was cut off or withheld by the landlady either with a view to compelling the tenant to vacate the shop or to pay enhanced rent. Therefore, the orders of the two courts below cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.
13. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The orders of the two courts below granting interim relief to the tenant under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Rent Controller for disposal afresh in accordance with law at an early date. No orders as to costs.
14. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 16.10.2000. The record of the case be returned to the learned Rent Controller forthwith so as to reach well before the date fixed.
