ABDUL HUSSAIN Versus AKHTAR ALI

This first 'rent appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance) has been filed against the order, dated 27‑5‑1982 of Senior Civil Judge anti Rent Controller, Nawabshah, whereby he allowed the application of respondent Syed Akhtar Ali and directed the prosecution of appellant. as provided under section 24 of Ordinance and restoring the electricity connection of the respondent.

2. The brief facts are that on 30‑3‑1982 Syed Akhtar Ali filed an application under section 11 of the Ordinance against the appellant in which he stated that appellant all of sudden disconnected the electricity connection of the premises where he was doing business. It is further stated that appellant demanded the enhanced rent which he refused, Therefore, he disconnected his electricity. The respondent filed written: statement in which he took the plea that WAPDA Team from Lahore headed by Military personnel visited the Town of Nawabshah for checking the theft of electricity. Therefore, in compliance with the objections of the WAPDA authorities he disconnected the electricity connection of the respondent.

3. In support of the case, the respondent examined himself while appellant was also examined and at his request S.D.O. Electricity Mr. Muhammad Moosa was summoned and examined.

4. I have heard Mr. Rafiq Khanzada, appearing for the appellant. He contended that in pursuance of the order of Rent Controller the electricity was restored to the respondent. Therefore, he has not violated the provisions of section 11 as such the order of the Rent Controller is bad in law. He further argued that the Rent Controller has wrongly directed the C.O.C. to file complaint on his behalf. His plea is that it is specifically mentioned in section 24 of the Ordinance that no Court shall take cognizance of offence under this Ordinance except upon complaint in writing made by the Rent Controller.

5. Mr. M.H. Burney appearing for the respondent submitted that appellant all of sudden without any notice disconnected the electricity of the respondent with the result that he suffered heavy loss and finally at the intervention of the Rent Controller, the electricity was restored. He also argued that WAPDA authorities had never given any notice to the respondent and respondent was doing his business since so many years in, the same premises.

6. The admitted position in the present case is that respondent used to get electricity from the appellant /landlord since so many year:. At the relevant tame he was doing business and had a photostat machine. The appellant disconnected his electricity in contravention of provision of section 11 of the Ordinance.

The subsection (1) of section 11 of the Sind Rented ,Premises Ordinance reads as follows:‑

"The landlord could discontinue of amenities with previous consent of the tenant or in compliance with the requisition of the concerned authority or after obtaining the direction of the Controller."

The appellant /landlord in this case has arbitrarily disconnected the electricity of the respondent. The Rent Controller has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant has contravened the provision of subsection (1) of section 11 for which he is liable to be punished. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. So far Mr. Rafiq Khanzada's contention that Court has wrongly taken cognizance on the complaint made by C .O . C . of the Senior Civil Judge Rent Controller. The appellant can seek legal remedy according to law as per provisions contemplated by Cr.P.C. This appeal having no merits is dismissed with no order as to costs.

H . B . T . Appeal dismissed.