DR. S. KOPELIWITCH Vs. NARAIN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi, which on appeal was affd. by the learned District J., Delhi, and the Bole point for determination in this case is whether the increase of rent is allowed under the Delhi and Ajmer -Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947, hereafter called the Act.

(2.) THE Appellant is a tenant in the house belonging to Seth Narain Das. The rent on 1 -11 -1939, was Rs. 125 a month. In August 1947 Seth Narain Das made an Appellant under Section 7 of the Act for the fixation of the standard rent and claimed that he was entitled to an increase of 37 1/8 % under the second schedule of the Act and a further increase of 6 1/4 % on the total expenditure of Rs. 19,049 -12 -3 which he claimed to have spent on improvements in 1945. There was also a claim for increase on account of house tax and water rate. The dispute between the parties was confined only to the increase on account of the alleged improvements. The Appellant claimed that these were normal repairs and were not improvements. The learned District J. held that the replacement of the roofs could not come within the term' normal repairs" and the landlord was entitled to an increase in rent. Before me it is contended that under Section 12 of the Act it was the duty of the landlord to keep premises in good and tenantable repair and because in the present case the roofs were leaking and the house could not be said to be tenantable unless they were replaced the expenditure on re -roofing the house would come within the term "normal repairs" and reliance was placed on a judgment of the Court of Appeal in Lurcott v. Wakely, (1911) 1 K.B. 905, where at page 919 Fletcher Moulton L J. said: