Whether tenants can claim water supply from landlord if they fails to pay water charges?

Now, in order that a landlord should be held guilty under Section 24 of the Rent Act, it must be shown that the landlord has by his act or omission withheld the essential supply. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that there was a dispute between the petitioner-landlord and the tenants in regard to the water supply charges, and pending this dispute from 1974, the water charges were in arrears to the tune of about Rs. 32,552.75. It was for this reason that the Bombay Municipal Corporation cut off the water supply on 7-3-1977. The petitioner-landlord in the present case was demanding water charges at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month and water charges at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month were fixed in the standard rent proceedings. Shri Rajani has contended that it was impossible for the petitioner-landlord to pay Rs. 32,000/- as the tenants were in arrears for payment of the said amount to the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner-landlord has omitted to pay water charges to the Bombay Municipal Corporation. There is considerable force in the argument advanced by Shri Rajani. If by non-payment of the water charges the landlord is put to helpless position, it cannot be said that the landlord has committed any act or omitted to do any act by which any essential supply has been discontinued.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appln. No. 185 of 1979

Decided On: 30.06.1980

Cajubhai Balabhai Pradhan Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.J. Rele, J.
Citation: 1982(1) BomCR 284:1982(2) RCJ573:1982(2) RCR 353

Print Page

Water and electricity supply form a part of right to life under Article 21 of Constitution : Himachal Pradesh HC

 The question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner, as an interim measure, be allowed the basic amenities of water and electricity. There is no gain in saying that potable water or electricity are integral part of Right to Life within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. These are basic necessities for human being and can well be termed as essentials of human rights. If the title dispute, owing to the prescription of right to appeal under the Statute remains pending for considerable long period, we see no reason to deny the petitioner's family the basic amenities of water and electricity, subject to their payment of requisite charges. It goes without saying that in the event of petitioner's having failed to prove his right to retain the possession, both facilities will also go alongwith the residential house.

In the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla

(Before Surya Kant, C.J and Ajay Mohan Goel, J.)

Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

CWP No. 2454 of 2018

Decided on October 22, 2018

Citation: 2018 SCC OnLine HP 1495

Print Page

Whether person in possession of premises can be denied electric and water supply if his suit for tenancy declaration is pending?

If the Petitioners are in physical possession of the suit premises, which fact is accepted even before me by the learned Advocate for the Respondent during the course of the argument, then one fails to understand as to why they should be deprived of electricity and water supply which is absolutely bare necessity and essential for even the basic day-to-day life in the modern world. This aspect is completely overlooked by the learned Judges of the Appellate Court. Merely because the documents which were relied upon by the Plaintiffs at the time of hearing of the interim application were not sufficient to establish a plea of tenancy, the Appellate Court could not have overlooked the fact that the suit is yet to be tried and the evidence is yet to be led. At the prima facie stage, the material available on the record was sufficient to infer at least one thing that the Plaintiffs were in exclusive physical possession of the suit premises and also that the said possession of the Petitioners is not a forcible possession and even the Defendant has not raised a plea that just prior to the filing of the suit, the Plaintiffs have forcibly entered the suit premises. This being the state of affairs, in my opinion, learned Judges of the Appellate Court have committed a manifest error in interfering with the Judgment of the Trial Court. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 7315 of 2011

Decided On: 18.10.2011

 Hansa Bhaskar Dave Vs. Harihar Himmatlal Mehta

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Godbole, J.

Citation: 2012(1) MHLJ730,2012(5) BonCR348,2012(1) AllMR 4

Print Page

Whether plaintiff is entitled to get electricity and water supply during pendency of suit for declaration of tenancy rights?

If the Petitioners are in physical possession of the suit premises, which fact is accepted even before me by the learned Advocate for the Respondent during the course of the argument, then one fails to understand as to why they should be deprived of electricity and water supply which is absolutely bare necessity and essential for even the basic day-to-day life in the modern world. This aspect is completely overlooked by the learned Judges of the Appellate Court. Merely because the documents which were relied upon by the Plaintiffs at the time of hearing of the interim application were not sufficient to establish a plea of tenancy, the Appellate Court could not have overlooked the fact that the suit is yet to be tried and the evidence is yet to be led. At the prima facie stage, the material available on the record was sufficient to infer at least one thing that the Plaintiffs were in exclusive physical possession of the suit premises and also that the said possession of the Petitioners is not a forcible possession and even the Defendant has not raised a plea that just prior to the filing of the suit, the Plaintiffs have forcibly entered the suit premises. This being the state of affairs, in my opinion, learned Judges of the Appellate Court have committed a manifest error in interfering with the Judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, a case for grant of relief by exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out, particularly when the learned Judges of the Appellate Court have not applied their mind to the facts of the case in proper perspective and the impugned Judgment and Orders exhibits that the learned Judges of the Appellate Court were completely oblivious of the existence of section 151 of the Code on the Statute Book.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 7315 of 2011

Decided On: 18.10.2011

Hansa Bhaskar Dave Vs. Harihar Himmatlal Mehta

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Godbole, J.

Citation: 2012(1) MHLJ 730, 2012(1) ALLMR 4

Print Page

Whether landlord is justified to discontinue water supply to tenants if they fail to pay water charges?

Now, in order that a landlord should be held guilty under Section 24 of the Rent Act, it must be shown that the landlord has by his act or omission withheld the essential supply. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that there was a dispute between the petitioner-landlord and the tenants in regard to the water supply charges, and pending this dispute from 1974, the water charges were in arrears to the tune of about Rs. 32,552.75. It was for this reason that the Bombay Municipal Corporation cut off the water supply on 7-3-1977. The petitioner-landlord in the present case was demanding water charges at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month and water charges at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month were fixed in the standard rent proceedings. Shri Rajani has contended that it was impossible for the petitioner-landlord to pay Rs. 32,000/- as the tenants were in arrears for payment of the said amount to the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner-landlord has omitted to pay water charges to the Bombay Municipal Corporation. There is considerable force in the argument advanced by Shri Rajani. If by non-payment of the water charges the landlord is put to helpless position, it cannot be said that the landlord has committed any act or omitted to do any act by which any essential supply has been discontinued.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appln. No. 185 of 1979

Decided On: 30.06.1980

 Cajubhai Balabhai Pradhan Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.J. Rele, J.

Citation: 1982(1)BomCR284; 1981CriLJ209

Print Page