BANARSI DASS Vs. SUNDER DASS AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant -landlord let two shops in dispute to the two respondents, Sunder Das and Bodh Raj, sometime in 1958. It is an admitted case on both sides that according to the rent -note the tenants were given a right to repair the shops at their own expense.

(2.) THE tenants demolished the front verandah of the shops and the western wall of the shops of which new foundation was dug, at least one other wall was reconstructed, and of the roofs of the two shops, one was replaced and the other was partly replaced.

(3.) THIS is a peculiar case in which, although the contract of tenancy between the parties provides for a right to the tenants to repair the demised shops at their own cost the tenants -respondents have actually done such construction, as has already been described above, that it is much more than can be brought within the meaning and scope of the word 'repairs'. It is a case of almost reconstruction of the two demised shops. Practically three fourth portion of the shops has been reconstructed and no more than two or three old walls have been retained to complete the building, the rest being an entirely new construction. The verandah was totally demolished, the western wall was so demolished that even a new foundation had to be laid before it could be raised, one roof was completely removed, and at least one or two other walls were completely removed. The other roof was partly reconstructed. This, in my opinion is not a case of repairs, and, I would, say, not even a case of extensive repairs. It is a case almost of reconstruction of the shops. There was an allegation on the side of the applicant that by the act of the respondents the area in his ownership, so far as the demised shops are concerned, has been reduced, but no satisfactory evidence has been brought in support of this allegation. The fact, however remains that at least three -fourth portion of the demised shops has been reconstructed and, as I have already said, in my opinion, this is not what may be called 'repairs' in the terms of the contract of tenancy between the parties, but it is a ease of almost reconstruction of the demised shops.