MOHAMMAD MUSTAFA Vs. HAJI BANDE KARIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will govern both the revisions which are before me as connected cases and arise out of two orders passed by the learned Munsif, Shahganj at Jaunpur, on 21 -7 -1969, in two cases arising out of proceedings under the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) between the same parties.

(2.) HAJI Bande Karim, opposite -party in these revisions, made two applications in the court below, one of which was an application Under Section 7 -E of the Act and the other an application Under Section 7 -C of the Act. Mohammad Mustafa, the Applicant in these revisions, was the opposite party in both the applications. On the assertion that Haji Bahde Karim was the tenant of Mohammed Mustafa in accommodation consisting of a shop in the Notified Area of Shahganj, it was fayed in the application Under Section 7 -E of the ct that the landlord Mohammad Musfa be directed to repair the shop and make it wind and water proof, whereas in the application Under Section 7 -C of the Act it was prayed that as Mohammad Mustafa was refusing to accept rent attempted to be tendered to him, deposit of rent be accepted by the court. Both the applications were contested by Mohammad Mustafa on the assertion principally that the property, which was the subject matter of dispute, was, in such a dilapidated condition that it could not be treated as accommodation within the meaning of that expression in the Act. Both the applications were registered as separate cases and in each case a Vakil was appointed commissioner. At the hearing of the cases learned Counsel for the parties appear to have agreed upon evidence in both the cases being treated as common and after considering the evidence in both the cases, the learned Munsif passed the orders sought to be revised by the two revision petitions before me. In both the cases the learned Munsif held that the property which was the subject -matter of dispute was accommodation and both the orders under revision were passed after considering the merits of such other controversies as were relevant. In the case arising out of the application Under Section 7 -E of the Act, the learned Munsif passed the following order:

(3.) IN regard to Civil Rev. No. 1233 of 1969, learned Counsel for the Applicant has urged that a substantial portion of the order passed by the learned Munsif is not warranted by the provisions contained in the Act. Reliance has been placed by learned Counsel on Clauses (5) and (6) of Section 7 -E of the Act. Clause (5) provides, inter alia, that if the landlord appears but fails to satisfy the court as to why he should not be directed to carry out the repairs, the court shall direct him to carry out the same within the time to be fixed. Clause (6) provides that if the landlord still fails to carry out the repairs in accordance with the direction Under Clause (5) the court may require the tenant to submit an estimate of the cost of repairs and after considering the estimate and taking such evidence as it may consider necessary permit the tenant to carry out the repairs at a cost not exceeding such amount as may be specified in the order, etc. It is, therefore, clear that the scheme laid down in the Act contemplates two separate stages which cannot be covered by one and the same order. The direction of the Learned Munsif to the landlord to carry out the repairs and make the shop water proof by getting its roof restored within one month is well supported and cannot be interfered with, but the further direction, in the course of the same order, providing for what was to happen in case the landlord defaulted in carrying out the order to make the shop water proof is unwarranted by the provisions contained in the Act. Therefore, Civil Rev. No. 1233 must be allowed and the order passed by the court below modified.