1. ' The appellant filed an application under section 11(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 alleging that he is tenant of the disputed premises on a rent of Rs.250 per month plus Rs.30 as water charges. He further alleged that since 18-3-1984 the respondent has discontinued the supply of water to the said premises of the applicant, and prayed that the respondent may be directed to restore it. The respondent filed written statement in which it was stated that the agreed rent is Rs.275 per month plus Rs.60 as water charges, which the appellant has been paying since 1981. The respondent also submitted that the appellant is running a hair-cutting saloon with 5 Hammams and as he did not pay the water charges, K.M.C. has disconnected the water connection due to non payment of the water bill. The learned Controller by the impugned order dismissed the application, as according to him the water supply was disconnected due to sufficient cause.
2. ' From the evidence the admitted position seems to be that in October, 1981 the appellant paid Rs.335 towards the rent of September, 1981 and insisted that receipt for Rs.280 may be issued which was declined by the respondent. Thereafter, the appellant did not pay rent for the month of October. He seems to have filed an application for deposit of rent in Court and started depositing the rent @ Rs.280 per month.
3. ' Mr.Syed Inayat Ali the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the respondent's attorney in his examination-in-chief has stated that the water supply was disconnected by K.M.C. but in cross-examination he has admitted that he himself has disconnected the water supply. This discrepancy is not likely to affect the merits of the case as for the purposes of this proceeding it has been established that the respondent has disconnected the water supply due to the dispute with the appellant.
4. ' Mr. Syed Inayet Ali the learned counsel contended that under section 11 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance the landlord is not permitted to disconnect the water supply, electricity or gas except with the previous consent of the tenant or in compliance with the requisition of the concerned authorities, or after obtaining permission of the Controller. According to the learned counsel as none of these conditions have been complied by the respondent he had no authority to disconnect the water supply and the learned Controller ought to have restored it. The argument advanced by the learned counsel requires interpretation of section 11 which reads as follows:- 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 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 recover 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 both."
5. ' The scheme of the section is that the landlord is prohibited from disconnecting electricity, gas or water supply. However, such disconnection is permissible under three circumstances, namely that he has obtained the consent of the tenant, or that he has acted in compliance with the requisition of the concerned authorities, which may be the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation, Sui Gas Co.
6. Ltd., Water & Sewerage Board, or any other authority entitled to supply and disconnect such services. The third condition is that the landlord has obtained prior permission of the Controller in this behalf. If a landlord without comply ing with any of these conditions, takes upon himself to disconnect the electricity, gas or water supply to the tenant, then he does so at his own risk and exposes himself to the penalty provided under section 11(5). The tenant is provided with a remedy under section 11(2) and he can apply to the Controller for restoration of the service. On such application being made the Controller will make enquiry under section 11(3) as he deems fit and will restore the supply if he comes to the conclusion that disconnection was without sufficient cause. This clearly implies that if the Controller comes to the conclusion that the disconnec tion of service was due to sufficient reason, then it is within his discretion not to issue direction to the landlord to restore such service. In cases where supply of service has been ordered to be restored but the landlord does not comply with that order, the Controller is competent under section 11(4) to execute the order and may take such necessary steps by which the supply of service can be restored. Subsection (5) provides for penalty to the landlord if he disconnects the supply in violation of the conditions laid down under subsection (1). The penalty is imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or with fine or with both. It is, therefore, clear that the contravention of section 11(1) is punishable but the Controller cannot necessarily in all cases order for restoration of the services for the simple reason that it has been disconnected in contravention of the conditions laid down by section 11(1). If the landlord has disconnected the services for sufficient reason the Controller may not order for its restoration. However, if a landlord has disconnected any service in contravention of section 11(1), then the tenant has been provided with two remedies which he can avail simultaneously. He can file an application for restoration of the supply which can be restored provided it has not been disconnected without sufficient cause. The second remedy is provided by section 11(5) under which the landlord can be penalised for violation of section 11(1). It is to be noted that in subsection (5) the emphasis is upon the contravention of provision of subsection (1) which may be even with sufficient cause. If a landlord without complying with the provisions of subsection
(1) disconnects the supply he exposes himself to the penal provision of subsection (5). Where in proceedings under section 11(2) the Controller comes to the conclusion that the landlord has disconnected the supply due to sufficient cause but without complying with the condition laid down under section 11(1), the landlord cannot escape the penalty for violating it. This penal provision has been introduced as a deterent to the landlords who should not take the law in their own hands and discontinue the supply at their own sweet will without complying the provisions of section 11(1).
7. In the present case, the proceedings were instituted under section 11(2) and the Controller came to the conclusion that the water supply has been disconnected due to sufficient reason. The sufficiency of the cause according to the learned Controller is that the appellant has not paid the water charges, although he is running a hair cutting Saloon with 5 Hammams in which water is used for his business purposes. I think the reasoning given and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Controller is correct, and the appellant has not been able to establish that the water supply was disconnected without sufficient cause. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.