ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-The admitted position is that respondent No. 2 Muhammad Zaman Abbasi is the tenant in respect of a tenement an a commercial multi-storeyed building known as Al-Noor Chambers, Preedy Street, Saddar, Karachi. On 22-9-1979 the second respondent submitted an application under section 10(2) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance of 1959) against his landlord one Nooruddin son of Salahuddin in the Court of Vlth Rent Controller, Karachi alleging that with effect from 20-9-1978 the said landlord had disconnected the supply of electricity to his premises without any reason and prayed for restoration of the electric supply. By an ex parte order dated 11-2-1980 the learned Rent Controller directed the landlord "to restore electric supply to the applicant within 15 days from the date of his Order." On 10-3-1980 the second respondent filed another application before the Rent Controller under section 11(5) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance of 1979) as in the meantime the said new Ordinance had come into force and the Ordinance of 1959 had been repealed. In the last mentioned application the second respondent prayed for penal action against his landlord for failing to comply with the previous order for restoration of electric supply. The learned Controller passed orders dated 6-4-1980 disposing of the said application which read as under :- "ORDER Heard the learned Advocate Mr. M. Z. Abbasi who is licensee applicant. None present for opponent though served.
On 11-2-1980 the opponent was directed to restore the electric of applicant within 15 days but he has not complied with the Order. Them is nothing in rebuttal from the opponent.
Under these circumstances I direct the K. E. S. F--- to grant direct connection to the applicant tenement on expenses of landlord and at present recoverable from the applicant by the K. E. S. C.
The applicant will be entitled to recover the amount of expenses incurred on the restoration of electricity from the opponent landlord.
(Sd.)
6-4-1980 VI Rent Controller at Karachi."
According to the averments contained in the present petition the second respondent had forwarded a copy of the order of the Rent Controller dated 6-4-1980 to the petitioner, the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited, on receiving which the petitioner appeared before the Rent Controller and filed an application under section 15 1, C. P. C. Praying that the aforesaid order be recalled. Notice of this application was given to the second respondent who filed a counter- affidavit. After hearing the parties the learned Rent Controller passed order dated 25-8-1980 (Annexure `F') dismissing the petitioner's application. The petitioner now seeks to call in question in this petition the order passed by the learned Rent Controller dated 6-4-1980 (Annexure `E') under section l l(5) of the Ordinance of 1979 and order dated 25-8-1980 rejecting the petitioner's application for recalling of the previous order (Annexure `F'), passed by the Rent Controller.
2. Mr. S. M. Noorul Hassan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that both the impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction as the learned Rent Controller did not possess the power to direct the petitioner to grant a fresh connection to the second respondent. The submission is that a Rent Controller under the Rent Ordinance has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon specified matters in respect of a landlord and a tenant as these terms are defined in the Ordinance. The Rent Controller, therefore, had no jurisdiction to issue a direction to a person other than a landlord or a tenant as such third parties are outside the scope and the ambit of the Ordinance. Section 11 of the Ordinance of 1979 reads as follows :- "11.-(1) No landlord shall discontinue or cause to be discontinued any service such as electricity, gas or water, except with the previous consent of the tenant or in compliance with the requisition of the concerned authority or after obtaining the direction of the Controller in this behalf.
(2) Where the landlord has discontinued or caused to be discontinued any service in contravention of subsection (1), the tenant may make an application to the Controller for restoration thereof.
(3) Where the Controller is, after making such inquiry as he deems fit, satisfied that the service has been discontinued without sufficient cause he shall make an order directing .The landlord to have the service restored within such period as may be specified in the order.
(4) Where the landlord has failed to comply with the order of the Controller made under subsection (3), the Controller may take necessary steps to get the service restored and recovered the costs of such restoration from the landlord.
(5) Where the landlord has contravened the provisions of subsection (1), he shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or with fine or with both."
Counsel argued that the direction in question in this petition requiring the petitioner to grant direct connection to the second respondent does not fall within the ambit of the powers conferred on a Controller under sub--section (4) of section 11. On the other hand, the second respondent, who is a practising Advocate, argued that the impugned orders were passed law--fully by the Rent Controller who had ample authority to issue the direction in question in view of the clear words in subsection (4) of section 11 that "the Controller may take necessary steps to get the service restored".
3. On a proper analysis of the section, we find that the power of the Controller to take cognizance of the complaint of a tenant is dependent on a finding that the landlord has "discontinued or caused to be discontinued any service in contravention of subsection (1)." Subsection (1), on the A other hand, clearly contemplates and prohibits discontinuance of any service such as electricity, gas or water, except "with the previous consent of the tenant or in compliance with the requisition of the concerned authority". It, therefore, seems to us that the power to order restoration of the service is predicated upon a voluntary act of the landlord to discontinue or cause to be discontinued any service. In a case where any such service is dis--continued as a result of action taken by the concerned authority providing such public services unrelated to any conduct on the part of the landlord, apparently no direction can be given by the Rent Controller for restoration of the service.
The case of the petitioner is that upon the complaint received from the second respondent it was found that the landlord was illegally providing electricity from two domestic meters to 350 commercial tenements illegally and that the , landlord had fallen into arrears in respect of those meters to the tune of one lac of rupees. In view of these circum--stances, the supply was disconnected. However, it is not necessary for us to enter into this question of fact in the present proceedings. Suffice it to say that we find the order passed by the Rent Controller dated 6-4-1980 to be palpably without jurisdiction. In the first place, without ascertaining the cause for the disconnection from the petitioner, the Rent Controller had no power to direct the petitioner to provide electric connection to the second respondent. No attempt was made by the Rent Controller to determine whether any arrears were due nor he made any express order as to how much amount was to be paid for the restoration of electric supply. Additionally, the jurisdiction under subsection (4) of section 11 does not extend to creating a new situation by means of a fresh connection to be supplied to the tenant. The power conferred on the Controller only extends to ordering restoration of the supply as previously provided. Apparently there seems to be difficulties in the restoration of the previous connection. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner-Company is prepared to furnish new electric power connection to the building for handling the requisite load if the landlord complied with certain requirements as to incurring of expenses for laying down additional supply lines from a proper source of supply. However, all these matters were not taken into consideration. The Rent Controller did not have jurisdiction to ignore these factors and bypass them by directing that a new connection be given to the second respondent.
4. The second respondent contended that for the new connection steps were taken by the petitioner and actual payment was received by the petitioner. He, therefore, urged that he was entitled to have the new connection installed in his premises. If upon his application independent of the proceedings before the Rent Controller the second respondent was granted any separate connection that matter may furnish a separate cause of action to the second respondent for enforcement of rights before an appropriate forum. But he cannot press these facts into service to support the impugned orders.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 6-4-1980, as having been passed without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect. The second impugned order dated 25-8-1980 being a consequential order based upon the first mentioned order, is also declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.