ANGNU LAL Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY FATEHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. Both the learned counsel have agreed that the writ petition may be decided finally at this stage.

(2.) THE facts necessary to follow the controversy, which is subject matter of this writ petition, are that the petitioner who is a tenant of a shop, made an application under section 28 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, here-in-after referred to as 'Act', before Prescribed Authority for an order requiring the respondent no. 2 landlord to carry out certain repairs in the accommodation in dispute. A copy of the application has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, perusal of which shows that the petitioner claimed repairs of the two doors and the roof. In paragraph no, 10 of this application the petitioner has specifically stated that in carrying out the aforesaid repairs the amount required may be mors than two years rent and in that case he is prepared to enhance the rent of the shop in dispute. It has been further stated that the notice was served on respondent no. 2 on 18th January. 1989 which was replied by respondent no 2 on 23rd January 1989 and he refused to accept the request of petitioner regarding repairs. Hence the application was filed. THE aforesaid application of petitioner was contested by respondent no. 2 interalia on the ground that as tenancy of the petitioner has been terminated, he is not entitled for the relief claimed by him. Further in paragraph no. 18 it was stated that though the shop in dispute is an old construction but it is in good condition and it does not require any repairs as alleged. It was also stated that the petitioner has made several alterations without his permission. Prescribed Authority after hearing parties by his order dated 22nd November, 1996 rejected application of petitioner on the ground that as repairs claimed by him shall require an investment of amount exceeding two years rent, the relief claimed in the application cannot be granted. Aggrieved by aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority, tenant has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

(3.) AFTER considering rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, serious question involved in this writ petition is as to what extent the landlord can be compelled to incur monetary liability while discharging his obligation under sub section (2) of section 26 of the Act which is being quoted below | "The landlord shall be bound to keep the building under tenancy wind proof and water proof and, subject to any J contract in writing to the contrary, carry out periodical white washing and repairs," On perusal of the aforesaid provision it is clear that there is an unqualified obligation on the part of the landlord to keep the building wind proof and waterproof daring the subsistence of the tenancy. Further subject to any contract between landlord and tenant in writing to the contrary the landlord is also liable to carry out periodical white washing and repairs. These obligations of the landlord can be enforced under section 28 of the Act which is being reproduced below :