DORAIPANDI KONAR Vs. P SUNDARA PATHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord Is the revision petitioner herein and he is aggrieved that the subordinate Judge of Madurai had by his judgment in A. S. 221 of 1967 reversed the judgment of the District Munsif of Melur in O. S. 222 of 1966 and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 835-30 proved to have been spent by the respondent tenant.

(2.) THE respondent Is running a tea shop in the eastern and northern portion of a building at a monthly rent of Rs. 40, The flooring of the respondent's portion was made of mud and the walls also similarly were made of mud, and the premises have a common thatched roof with the other two portions of the building. As the petitioner landlord refused to renovate the roof which was leaking in the rains and to repair the mud floor and to put walls in the place of the mud walls which had fallen in spite of his requests and a notice, the respondent renewed the entire thatched roof which was common to his premises as well as the other portions of the building, demolished the old mud walls and put up brick walls instead on three sides and laid a new cement floor instead of the old mud floor. The petitioner unsuccessfully obstructed the respondent from carrying out the said operations while they were going on and later refused to meet the charges amounting to Es. 835-30 proved to have been spent by the respondent.

(3.) THE learned District Munsif is of opinion that the respondent was entitled If at all, only to replace the old mud walls with new mud walls and to repair the mud floor and had no right to replace the mud walls with a brick wall and the mud floor with a cement floor but upheld the respondent's act in renovating the entire thatched roof and he held that the respondent would be entitled to recover, if at all only a sum of Rs. 532-87. But he found, that, as the respondent had not applied to the Rent Controller for permission to replace the roof, walls and mud floor under Section 22 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, he is not entitled to recover any amount and accordingly dismissed the entire suit. He is of opinion that the provisions of Section 108 (f) of the Transfer of Property Act which relate to the rights of a lessee in case of repairs not done by the lessor within a reasonable time of notice cannot be invoked, after Section 22 had been enacted in the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960.