SILVY Vs. VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel on both sides.

(2.) Section 17(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act provides in unmistakable and categorical terns that "if landlord fails to attend to such maintenance or repairs to the buildings and amenities thereto within a reasonable time after notice is given by the tenant, it shall he competent for the Accommodation Controller to direct on application by the tenant that such maintenance and repairs may he attended to by the tenant and that the charges and cost thereof may be deducted with interest at six per cent per annum from the rent which is payable by tun". As per Ext. P4 order of the Accommodation Controller which is under challenge, it is found that the building requires repairs and not reconstruction as alleged by the petitioner. The findings in Ext, P4 are as follows:

(3.) From the extracted portion of the impugned order, I ant satisfied that what has been directed to he done is repair and restoration of a dilapidated wall of the tenanted building which however cannot he characterised as 'reconstruction' as alleged by the petitioner - landlord. The execution of repair of the wall became a grave necessity as a result of culpable negligence on the part of the petitioner in effecting timely maintenance to the building which is clear from Ext R 1(a) produced along with the counter affidavit of the first respondent - tenant tiled before this court in which case he cannot he permitted to take advantage of his own lapses. The order Ext. P4 cannot he said to he perverse or arbitrary nor does it suffers from any jurisdictional defect or violation of the principles of natural justice. That apart, various findings contained in Ext. P4 are essentially findings of fact which cannot be effectively adjudicated under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In the aforesaid view, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Since the landlord - petitioner had unnecessarily driven the tenant - first respondent to this court, I am satisfied that this is a fit case where cost should he awarded for the contumacious conduct of the petitioner. Accordingly, the O.P. is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 2,500/-.