MOHD IBRAHIM Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Bareilly dated 30th July, 1988 in a pending appeal under section 22 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), permitting the tenant to raise and repair the boundary walls of the house in dispute.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that appellate authority under section 22 of the Act has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.

(3.) SECTION 28 of the Act specifically lays down that in case the landlord fails to carry out the white washing or repairs in the tenanted property then the tenant by a notice in writing may call upon the landlord to carry out the same within ope month from the date of service of such notice. In case the landlord fails to comply with the said notice then it is open to the tenant to apply to the Prescribed Authority for seeking appropriate relief. It is, therefore, clear that under the Act, a specific remedy is provided to a tenant for moving the Prescribed Authority for the purpose of getting the tenanted property repaired. This order the Prescribed Authority can pass after hearing the landlord. Under section 22 of the Act, the appellate authority has been given the power to affirm, vary or rescind the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. It has also the power to take additional evidence and stay the operation of the order in appeal, but the Appellate Authority has no power to pass an order of a nature which could only be passed under section 28 of the Act.