( 2025:HHC:23117 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 69 of 2025. Decided on : 16 th July, 2025. Rohit Dass & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Bidhi Chand ....Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). By way of instant petition, the petitioners/landlords have assailed the order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the learned Appellate Authority-II, Hamirpur in Rent Appeal No. 2/2019, whereby the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Court No. 4, Hamirpur in CMA No. 2090/2019 in Rent Case No. 7/2019 has been set aside and the petitioners herein/landlords have been directed to restore the electricity supply/connection to the tenanted premises. 2. Petitioners herein are the landlords and respondent herein is the tenant in respect of one shop at Hamirpur. The relationship inter se the parties is governed by the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act”). 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:23117 ) 3. The tenant approached the learned Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act with a grievance that during the subsistence of his tenancy, the electricity connection installed in the tenanted premises had been disconnected at the instance of the landlords. The landlords contested the petition with the averments that the building in which the tenanted shop was situated had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation on account of its dilapidated condition and even the local authority had issued a notice in that behalf. 4. Learned Rent Controller dismissed the application of the tenant, however, on appeal preferred by the tenant before the learned Appellate Authority, the same has been allowed vide impugned order. 5. Learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the tenancy was subsisting and the amenity of electricity was available in the premises before its disconnection. On such premise it is held that the electricity being the basic amenity cannot be taken away from the tenanted premises till the tenant is evicted in accordance with law. 6. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court. Since, it is established fact that 3 ( 2025:HHC:23117 ) the tenant holds the possession of the premises and has not been evicted in accordance with law, the basic amenities enjoyed by him or available in the premises cannot be taken away as it will amount to forcing the tenant to vacate the premises. 7. Learned counsel for the landlords/petitioners has expressed an apprehension that since the building is in dilapidated condition, the installation of electricity may cause further damage on account of some mishap. The apprehension so expressed appears to be hypothetical, yet it can be observed that since the electricity connection has been sought to be installed by the tenant himself, it will be his responsibility to take all precautions and such installation will be at his risk. 8. In result, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed with observations as made hereinabove. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 16th July, 2025. (jai)