The legal provision under the Rent Control Act does not require a notice of termination to evict a tenant, and a tenant is obligated to pay rent even if the premises are destroyed, unless proper proceedings are filed to enforce the right to repairs and the cost of repairs is deducted from the rent.

ORDER :- The petitioner was a tenant of the second respondent in respect of the suit premises. The suit premises were gutted down by fire. The petitioner stopped residing in the premises, but kept the house locked and retained the key with him. He stopped paying the rent from the month of June 1973. The second respondent filed an eviction application on the ground of non-payment of rent. The eviction application was granted by the Rent Controller. The petitioner went in appeal to the Administrative Tribunal who dismissed the appeal. He now comes before me with this writ petition.

2. The contentions of Shri William Gomes are twofold : The first is that this tenancy was not treminated by a proper notice and the second is that he had shown sufficient cause for non-payment of rent and that, therefore, the tenancy could not be terminated.

3. My Learned Brother, Shri Mishra, admitted the petition only on the first ground. It is contended by Shri William Gomes that the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to admit only a part of the petition. He states that the petition should be admitted or rejected in toto. Shri G.A. Kamat does not seriously object to this contention. I too feel that once the petition is admitted on some grounds, I cannot limit the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the petitioner only on those grounds.

4. On the question of notice, it is a settled question of law in view of the ruling in "V. Dhanapal chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal" (1979) 4 SCC 214 : (AIR 1979 SC 1745) that no notice of termination under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act is necessary to evict a tenant under any of the grounds mentioned in the Rent Control Act.

5. I come now to the second point. The petitioner retained the possession of the suit house and he was bound to pay the rent. His justification for non-payment of rent is that the landlord was bound to repair the house. This argument is opposed by Shri Kamat, on behalf of the first respondent on the ground that the question was not of repairs but of re-construction and that the Act provides for no remedy to the tenant to demand re-construction by the landlord. I agree with Shri Kamat.

6. Even if it is admitted that the petitioner had a right to compel the landlord to re-construct, the petitioner is bound to file proper proceedings to enforce his right, and raise the question of payment of rent in those proceedings. The contention of Shri Kamat that the rent for the re-constructed house would have to be ascertained according to the cost of re-construction, also carries weight.

7. In any event, the question that the house has to be repaired, as alleged by the petitioner, and not re-constructed, as alleged by the second respondent, is a question of fact, which will not be ascertained by me. The finding of the two Courts below on the question as to whether good cause was shown or not by the petitioner for non-payment of rent, shall stand.

8. The argument of Shri William Gomes is that he had to vacate the house because it could not be inhabited as it was gutted by fire. He also states that he could not carry out the repairs because the repairs were major. He furtheir contends that since he had not occupied the house, he was not bound to pay his rent and that this justification should be accepted by the Administrative Tribunal. I am unable to agree with Shri William Gomes. When a house is gutted by fire and it becomes useless for habitation, the tenancy should be deemed to have ended because the house can no longer be used for the purpose for which it was rented. The petitioner could therefore vacate the house and stop paying the rent. Since the petitioner choose to keep the house destroyed by fire, in his possession, he was bound to pay the rent.

9. Under the Rent Act if the landlord is not prepared to repair the house the petitioner is entitled to repair it and then deduct the cost of repairs from the rent. If the petitioner had done so, the stoppage of rent would