' This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordiance, 1979 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), is from the order dated 23rd January, 1983, passed by the Controller in Rent Application No, 177 of 1982.
2. The relevant facts are that the appellant is a tenant of the respondent in respect of a shop 'situated at Quarter No, 307/C, Unit No, 11, Latifabad, Hyderabad, at a monthly rent of Rs, 50 including electricity charges.
3. The appellant filed an application under section 11 of the Ordinance stating that respondent had filed a rent application against the appellant, being Rent Application No, 11 of 1978, for his eviction from the shop on the ground of non-payment of electricity charges and the rent. But the application was dismissed by the Controller and it was held that the rent of the shop was Rs, 50 which included electricity charges. The appeal filed against the order also met the same fate.
It is alleged that thereafter, the respondent disconnected the electric supply to the shop of the appellant without any rhyme or reason. It is also alleged that although the agreed rent of Rs, 50 include electricity charges, yet the respondent filed a suit for recovery of the electricity charges after disconnecting the same, being suit No, 429 of 1981, which was dismissed for non-prosecution.
It is also stated in the memorandum of this appeal that against the order passed in the first appeal, a second appeal was filed in the High Court which was also dismissed.
4. The respondent in the written objection claimed that when the tenancy was started on verbal agreement the rent at the rate of Rs, 80 was agreed and the electricity charges were agreed to be paid as per reading of the meter. He has also stated therein that the premises consists of three shops occupied by three tenants and a residential premises occupied by him and the electricity of the whole premises has been disconnected due to non-payment of the electricity charges by the tenants in spite of providing sub-meters to them. It was claimed that the appellant was using the electricity of about Rs, 100 per month. However, it is not denied that in the Rent Application No, 11 of 1978 the agreed rent of the shop was held to be Rs, 50 including the electricity charges and the appeal against the order passed in that case was dismissed.
5. On the pleadings of the parties the Controller framed the following issues.
"(1) Whether the electric connection was discontinued by the opponent/landlord and or the same was caused to be discontinued at his instance ?
(2) What should the order be ?"
6. Before the Controller the appellant filed his own affidavit reiterating the contents of the application. In cross-examination he stated that he had only one fan and two light and closed the shop at 8-00 p. m. He denied the suggestion that he used the electricity of Rs, 100 per month. It was put to him in cross-examination that the electricity was disconnected by WAPDA but be said that he did not know whether it was disconnected by WAPDA or the respondent himself.
7. The respondent in support of his case filed his own affidavit wherein be reiterated the contents of the written objection. In cross-examination he stated that the main meter in the building is in his name and the sub-meter has been fixed in the premises which is in his possession. He admitted that he was using the electricity from the main meter and that since prior to 1977 he had not paid the electricity charges. He also admitted that the appellant had been depositing the rent in Court and he had moved an application for withdrawal of the same.
8. Before the Controller it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant and other tenants had failed to pay the arrears of electricity charges, therefore, the authorities disconnected the electricity from the main meter. However, the learned Controller decided both the issues against the appellant,
9. The appellant has therefore, come up in this appeal.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the order, of the learned Controller is erroneous. He submitted that the Controller erred in holding that the respondent had not disconnected the supply of the appellant nor the same was disconnected at his instance and that the disconnection of the electricity to the appellant and other tenants is due to non-payment of arrears and for that the landlord/respondent could not be blamed.
11. In reply it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that WAPDA has disconnected the electric supply as arrears of Rs, 3,062 were not paid. He further submitted that in collusion with the appellant the other tenants were also not paying the electricity charges.
12. It is correct that the respondent himself has not disconnected the supply of electricity to the shop of the appellant. But after the admission of the respondent that in Rent Application No, 11 of 1978, it was decided that the rent of the premises is Rs, 50 per month including electricity charges and the appellant had been depositing the rent in Court and he had moved an application for its withdrawal, it was the responsibility of the respondent to clear the electricity dues. Therefore it is the respondent who has caused the electricity supply to be disconnected. Section 11 of the Ordinance covers such a situation. It may be convenient, if I quote the provisions thereof here : "11. Discontinuance of amenities and services. -(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 Coneroller 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.
It is also in evidence that the respondent is residing in the same building1B and has been using the electricity. If a landlord does not pay the) electricity charges in spite of receiving the same from the tenant it is he who is responsible for disconnection of electric supply. He cannot escape its responsibility. As regards the submission that the other tenants are not paying the electricity charges, if it is so, the respondent should have taken action against them in accordance with law, but he could not cause the supply to be disconnected by not paying the dues of WAPDA.
13. I am, therefore, of the view that the Controller erred in dismissing the application. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent to get the electricity supply restored to the pre miser of the appellant by clearing the electricity dues. If the appellant C is consuming electricity of the value of more than Rs, 10 the respondent may seek his remedy under the law.
Similarly if other tenants are not paying the charges he may take action against them according to law.
' However, in the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.