PRIYALAL DAS Vs. SHYAM SUNDAR GOENKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is directed against an order dated 5th November, 1979 passed by the Assistant District Judge No. 2 Gauhati allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the trial court. The present Petitioner is a tenant of the accommodation in question at a monthly real of Rs. 135/including electric charges. He is using it as a godown the room in question has C.I. sheet roofs, pucca brick plinth, cement plastered floor and C.I. sheet wards. A drain was also provided for taking out rain water to the Municipal drain. The case of the Petitioner was that the room being very old needed repairs. He then asked the landlord of the said room to carry out the repairs but to no avail. Hence be filed a Misc. Case No. 57 of 1973 in the court of Sadar Munsiff No. 1, Gauhati under Section 7 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act 1972, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The learned Munsiff on consideration of the evidence adduced held that the room in question required repair; hence he allowed the application and directed the landlord to carry out the repair and restore electric connection. He also directed the landlord to restore the drain which was lying blocked vide his order dated 24th June, 1978. The opposite party filed an appeal from that order alleging that the application under Section 7 of the Act was not maintainable against him, inasmuch as, he had purchased the said accommodation during the pendency of the Misc. Case No. 57 of 1973. His contention was that he had never selected to carry out any repairs in the said room and in fact no damage was caused to the building requiring repairs after he had purchased the said property. He also said that he had not disconnected the electric supply line. Hence be was not bound to restore the same. The same was the plea with respect to drain also. The appellate Court below found favour with this contention and allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Sadar Munsiff. The Petitioner being aggrieved has preferred the instant revision petition.

(2.) FOR the Petitioner it was urged that the court below totally ignored the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act which were squarely applicable to the facts of the case. In order to appreciate the contention of the Petitioner it would be appropriate to read Section 6 of the Act which is in the following terms:

(3.) SECTION 6 of the Act mandates every landlord to keep a hone which is in occupation of a tenant wind -proof and waterproof and to carry out all other necessary repairs which he is bound to do under, contract or custom or law. He is also bound to maintain existing essential supplies to the house which is occupied by a tenant as is borne out from the provision of Section 7 of the Act. If he fails to carry out repairs or maintain existing essential supplies and services the tenant may approach the Court by an application under Section 7 of the Act. The Court shall then give a notice to the landlord to appear before it and show cause against the application of the tenant. If the landlord fails to show sufficient cause, he will be directed to make such repairs and to restore the essential supplies and services as are contemplated in Section 6 of the Act within such period as may be specified by the court. If the landlord fails or neglects to carry out repair or provide existing essential supplies and services, the tenant would be permitted to do the same at a cost not exceeding the amount determined by the court and in such an event the tenant would be entitled to deduct the cost from the rent or recover the amount from the landlord by executing the decree. The order passed under Section 7 of the Act is appeasable under Section 8 of the Act.