The main legal point established is the limitation of the Accommodation Controller's jurisdiction to periodical maintenance and necessary repairs only, and the requirement for the Accommodation Controller to ascertain whether the tenant caused any damage to the building and fix the cost of repair before passing orders on the application under S.17(2) of the Act.

P.A. Mohammed, J.

1. In this writ petition, the landlord of a non residential building challenges Ext. P5 order passed by the second respondent - Accommodation Controller under S.17(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short the Act). Third respondent is the tenant of the building. He filed Ext. P1 petition before the second respondent alleging that the writ petitioner landlord failed to make periodical maintenance and repairs of the building let out to him on rental basis. The landlord filed Ext. P2 objection wherein it was contended that damage to the building was caused by the tenant and maintenance sought to be done would not come within the scope of periodical maintenance and necessary repairs of the building, in which case Ext. P1 petition itself was not maintainable. However, the Accommodation Controller by Ext. P3 order directed the landlord to make immediate arrangements to effects repairs of the building. It was in that circumstance the present writ petition was filed by the landlord.

2. After admitting the writ petition this court in C. M. P. No. 8857 of 1990 passed the following interim order.

''Both sides may file estimates of the cost of repair before the Accommodation Controller within two weeks from today. Thereafter, the Accommodation Controller may order the party offering the lower estimate to do the work after preparing an inventory of the state of the building or lost part of it which is being repaired, in the presence of the parties or their representatives. As to who should bear the cost of repair will be decided in the writ petition."

Both sides admitted before me that the tenant has effected maintenance and repair as ordered by the Accommodation Controller in pursuance of the interim order of this court.

3. S.17(2) of the Act reads thus:

"Notwithstanding any law, custom, usage or contract to the contrary the landlord shall be bound to attend to the periodical maintenance and necessary repairs of the building. If landlord fails to attend to such maintenance or repairs to the buildings and amenities thereto within a reasonable time after notice is given by the tenant, it shall be competent for the Accommodation Controller to direct on application by the tenant that such maintenance and repairs may be attended to by the tenant and that the charges and cost thereof may be deducted with interest at six per cent per annum from the rent which is payable by him."

It is the obligation of the landlord to attend to the periodical maintenance and necessary repairs of the building.' If landlord fails to attend to such maintenance or repairs within a reasonable time after notice is given by the tenant, than the Accommodation Controller is competent to direct, on application by the tenant, that such maintenance or repairs may be done by the tenant. Therefore the Accommodation Controller gets jurisdiction to deal with the application for ordering periodical maintenance and necessary repairs of the building only when the landlord fails to effect maintenance or repairs of the building pursuant to the notice given by the tenant. A Division Bench of this court in 1980 KLT SN 9 (W. A. No. 114/79) held "failure to effect 'maintenance and repairs of the building is a jurisdictional condition, on the satisfaction of which depends the Accommodation Controller's power and authority to direct the tenant to carry out the maintenance and repairs himself, and adjust the same against the rent payable. Being a jurisdictional condition, the question whether there was failure to attend to such maintenance and repairs' is open to review in writ jurisdiction under Art.226. What is required and contemplated by S.17(2) is only a 'maintenance or repair' and not a 'renovation', much as less a reconstruction of the building". This court again in Kunhaleema v. Accommodation Controller (1982 KLT 446) held thus:

"Under S.17(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent B Control) Act, the landlord is entitled to reason