CHANDRASEKHARAN Vs. PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed invoking Art. 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner filed an application in 2007 invoking S. 17 of Act 2 of 1965, seeking a direction for carrying out repairs to a rented premises. The Accommodation Controller allowed it on 7.6.2011. This Court set aside that order and remitted the matter for reconsideration. Following that, the Accommodation Controller himself visited the premises with notice to parties and thereafter heard the parties through counsel. The Accommodation Controller found on his inspection that the building had reached such a stage where it cannot be sustained or resurrected by a repair and the situation is that there can be only reconstruction. Under such circumstances, the Accommodation Controller refused to pass an order directing the landlord to carry out repairs. This is under challenge. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the visit by the Accommodation Controller was only in 2011 though the application was in 2007 and the state of affairs as at the time of filing application ought to have been considered rather than any change with the passage of time.

(2.) In an application for direction to the landlord to carry out repairs, it cannot be accepted as a principle of law that the date of the application under S. 17 or the date of the cause of action for that application is the point of time, which alone has to be taken as relevant to decide on the application. The realities in a landlord-tenant relationship, including the physical situation to which the building would take its turn with the passage of time, are relevant and have to be considered. It is this pragmatic approach that has to be adopted in proceedings under S. 17. We see that the first order which was issued in favour of the tenant was on 7.6.2011 and following the remit, the true state of affairs prevailing now is shown. The Accommodation Controller has concluded specifically that he is satisfied on inspection that the building is beyond repair and cannot be resurrected by any procedure of carrying out repairs. This is a finding on fact. It cannot be treated as perverse. It is based on materials and inferences drawn. We do not find any ground to interfere with that finding under Art. 226 or 227 of the Constitution. The petition fails.