JUDGMENT TARIQ JAVAID, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned First Appellate Court has erred in law in passing the impugned order in as much as that under clause 26 of the Contract for the supply of natural gas, the petitioners were entitled to rescind the contract as soon as the property was sold to a third person. Reliance has been placed on Hafiz Sharafatullah and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (1995 CLC Quetta 1790) and Syed Umair Akhtar v. LESCO and others (2007 YLR Lahore 272),
2. The proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not appear to be legally tenable. The supply of natural gas, electricity and telephone connection are basic necessities. Once a person has purchased a property where such essential services or utilities are provided the purchaser steps into shoes of the previous owners and becomes privy to the contract entered between the previous landlord and supplier of utilities and essential services enumerated above. It has not been shown that soon after the purchase of property by the respondents; the petitioner had any intention to revoke his contract. In such a case supply of essential services and utilities cannot be discontinued. The supplier of such services cannot pick and choose between the customers. If supply of natural gas is provided in the area, naturally all the consumers in the area are entitled to get benefit and there is no choice with the petitioner to refuse supply to any of them unless the consumer refuses to pay for the same and of fail to install equipments which are to ensure the safety. Same is the position with supply of electricity and telephone connection. These being the essential services and utilities are right of a citizen and the providing of such services by the State, though a Corporation or private entity cannot be denied. Such utilities and services are a rational resources and the suppliers of essential services are under obligation to provide the facility to the citizens. The commercial consumers of the natural gas are also entitled to the supply as the vendor, at the time of getting supply connected pays for the same which enhance the value of the property. As such the vendee buys the property with all its amenities. At the time of installation of natural gas they always know fully well that the property, is likely to change hands. In any event, the respondents have no lawful right to disconnect the services at their on whims and then claim that under the contract they are not bound to supply the gas to a subsequent vendee.
3. Clause 26 heavily being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is one of those meaningless clauses which are often entered into contract for provision of services but such terms and conditions cannot be construed so as to arm the supplier with a sword to disconnect the supplies of essential services to the consumer and leave him at their mercy nor the supplier can use the same as a shield to defend the illegal disconnections. This is meaningless clause and all such clauses merit to be struck down. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. With the above observation this petition is dismissed with no order for costs.