The tenant's right to recover repair costs is limited to one-fourth of the yearly rent as per Section 23 of the Bombay Rent Act, despite the landlord's neglect.

JUDGMENT :

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

1. Heard Mr. Divekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. M. L. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents and Mr. Drupad Patil, learned Amicus Curiae.

QUESTION OF LAW:

2. In this Writ Petition an interesting question of law concerning the interpretation of Section 23 of the The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (“Bombay Rent Act”) is raised. It is the contention of the Petitioner – Landlord that if the tenantable repairs are carried out to the suit premises by the tenant then in one year only one-fourth of the aggregate of yearly rent can be deducted or recovered and therefore the Suit filed for recovery of the entire amount required for repairs is not maintainable. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Respondent - Tenant that as the tenant was constrained to carry out the repairs, as landlord refused or neglected to carry out the same, which is the statutory responsibility of the landlord, the entire amount incurred by the tenant for repairs be allowed to be recovered.

CHALLENGE:

3. By the present Writ Petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the Judgment and Decree dated 31^st March 1997 passed by the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj at Miraj in Regular Civil Suit No.225 of 1989 as well as to the Judgment and Decree dated 11^th August 2000 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.231 of 1997 by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Sangli at Sangli.

4. The Respondent – Plaintiff filed said Regular Civil Suit No.225 of 1989 against the Petitioner – Defendant seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.27,032.05/-. The Plaintiff is the tenant and the Defendant is the landlord. The learned Trial Court by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 31^st March 1997 partly decreed the Suit filed by the Plaintiff i.e. present Respondent and directed the Defendant i.e. present Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.21,178.15/- to the present Respondent along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the said amount of Rs.21,178.15/- from the date of filing of the Suit till realisation. The said Judgment and Decree of the learned Trial Court has been confirmed by the learned Appellate Court by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 11^th August 2000.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

5. Before setting out the rival contentions and consideration of the same, it is necessary to set out the relevant factual position :-

i. It is the contention of the present Respondent/Plaintiff/Tenant that the suit premises were in dilapidated condition and therefore required immediate repairs. It is contended that the same is the statutory responsibility of the Petitioner/Defendant/Landlord. Therefore, Plaintiff issued a notice on 8^th August 1987 calling upon the Defendant to carry out the repairs. The Defendant failed to reply to the said notice and as the Defendant neglected to carry out the repairs, the Plaintiff commenced the repairs.

ii. The Defendant obstructed the said repair work and therefore Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.246 of 1987 against the Defendant seeking injunction. The learned Trial Court restrained the Defendant from obstructing the Plaintiff from carrying out the repair work. The Plaintiff completed the repair work under the police protection. For the said repair work, the Plaintiff spent an amount of Rs.21,170.15/-.

iii. As the Defendant being landlord failed to carry out the repairs and is liable to pay the said amount with interest, by notice dated 11^th April 1988, the Plaintiff demanded the said amount along with compensatory cost at the rate of 15% per annum.

iv. As the Defendant failed to pay the said amount the Suit has been filed being the Regular Civil Suit No.225 of 1989 on 26^th June 1989 for recovery of an amount of Rs.27,032.05/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.

v. The learned Trial Court partly decreed the said Regular Civil Suit No.225 of 1989 by the i