Landlord is not liable to meet cost.

4:43 PM 04/29/2011 The landlord is the revision petitioner herein and he is aggrieved that the Subordinate Judge of Madurai had by bis judgment in A.S. No. 221 of 1967 reversed the judgment of the District Munsif, Melur, in O.S. No. 222 of 1966 and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 835-30 proved to have been spent by the respondent tenant.

The respondent is running a tea shop in the eastern and northern portion of a building at a monthly rent of Rs. 40. The flooring of the respondent’s portion was made of mud and the walls also similarly were made of mud; and the premises have a common thatched roof with the other two portions of the building As the petitioner landlord refused to renovate the roof which was leaking in the rains and to repair the mud floor and to put up walls in the place of the mud walls which had fallen in spite of his requests and a notice, the respondent renewed the entire thatched roof which was common to his premises as well as the other portions of the “building, demolished the old mud walls and put up brick walls instead on three sides and laid a new cement floor instead of the old mud floor. The petitioner unsuccessfully obstructed the respondent from carrying out the said operations while they were going on and later refused to meet the charges amounting to Rs. 835-30 proved to have been spent by the respondent.

The learned District Munsif is of opinion that the respondent was entitled if at all, only to replace the old mud walls with new mud walls and to repair the mud floor and had no right to replace the mud walls with a brick wall and the mud floor with a cement floor but upheld the respondent’s act in renovating the entire thatched roof and he held that the respondent would be entitled to recover, if at all only a sum of Rs. 532-87P. But he found, that, as the respondent had not applied to the Rent Controller for permission to replace the roof, walls and mud under section 22 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, he is not entitled to recover any amount and accordingly dismissed the entire suit. He is of opinion that the provisions of section 108 (f) of the Transfer of Property Act which relate to the rights of a lessee in case of repairs not done by the lessor within a reasonable time of notice cannot be invoked, after section 22 had been enacted in the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960).

The learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai however is of opinion that section 22 of the Act is not a complete code by itself, defining the rights and liabilities of the lessors and lessees, that section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act continues to apply to cases like the present one, that what the respondent had effected were only repairs and not a reconstruction of the building and that, as the petitioner landlord has refused to carry out the repairs, the respondent was entitled to recover the entire amount claimed by him. Hence the revision. It maybe observed that he, however, repelled the contention that section 70 of the Indian Contract Act was applicable to this case.

The first question which arises for consideration is whether the respondent is entitled to base his claim upon the provisions of section 108 (f) of the Transfer of Property Act, ignoring the provisions of section 22 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel, it is desirable to set out the relevant provisions of these two Acts.

"Section 2 (7) of the Rent Control Act defines repairs as ‘the restoration of a building to a sound or good state after decay or injury, but does not include additions, improvements, or alterations except in so far as they are necessary to carry out such restoration’”.

The provisions of section 14 (1) in so far as they deal with repairs read thus:- “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, but subject to the provisions of sections 12 and 13, on an application made by a landlord, the Contr