KHAIRUNNISSA BEGUM Vs. B N CHOBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition directed aginst the order of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court given on 6th July, 1965, which arose in the following circumstances.

(2.) The respondent is the tenant of the petitioner and resides in the house bearing municipal No. 22-1-106 situated in Tehmasphkanpura, Hyderabad City. He agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 25. (I.G.) The tenant filed a petition under section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Act, for permission to effect repairs to the house and for the restoration of electricity in the two rooms. He alleged Inter alia that in spite of notice, the landlady did not carry out the repairs from 1951 onwards. The landlady did not appear before the Rent Controller. She was therefore set ex parte. Upon a proper enquiry the Rent Controller allowed the petition and directed repairs to be carried out to the extent of Rs. 300 and the tenant was permitted to deduct that amount from the future rents payable by him to the landlady.

(3.) Aggrieved by that order of the Rent Controller, the landlady carried the matter in appeal. The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, who is the appellate authority under the Act, concurred with the opinion of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. It is this concurrent view of the Courts below that is now assailed in this revision petition. The principal contention of Mr. Aziz Ahmed Khan is that the Rent Controller was not competent to grant permission to carry out the repairs to the extent of Rs. 300 and allow the tenant to deduct the whole amount from rent. He invited my attention to the proviso to section 19 of the Act : I find sufficient force in this contention. Section 19, in so far as it is relevant, reads as follows :-