The replacement of the roof was held to be necessary under section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, and the cost of repairs exceeding the rent payable by a tenant is not a deciding factor in such cases.

S.C.Mittal, J.

1. Bimla Devi filed an application under section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Act No. 3 of 1949) against her landlord, Dr. Jagmohan Singh for a direction that as the roof of one of the rooms had cracked in consequence of rains, the same be got replaced by the landlord. The Rent Controller found that Rs. 1000/- would be required for the replacement of the roof. He accordingly issued a direction in terms of section 12 of the AM Feeling aggrieved, the landlord appealed to the District Judge, Amritsar (the appellate authority under the Act). The learned District Judge affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller as to the replacement of the roof but he field that the cost for the said purpose as Rs. 1000/- was miscalculated. Accordingly, he ordered the landlord to get the replacement done within six months whatever be the cost thereof. In default, the tenant was allowed to get roof replaced and recover the expenses from the landlord in accordance with law. The landlord has now filed this revision petition under section 15(5) of the Act aforesaid. The concurrent findings of the two authorities below that the condition of the roof in question is such that its replacement is necessary is well based and no plausible reasons has been advanced by the learned counsel for the landlord to upset it. The principal argument advanced by the learned counsel for the landlord was that the replacement of roof of a building does not fall within the ambit of section 12 of the Act which provides for the making of the necessary repairs to a building other than structural alterations." On the other hand, learned counsel for the tenant relied on Shri Chandu Lai v. Har Lal, Civil Revision No. 801 of 1965, decided by my Lord Grover 1, (as he then was) on 4th May, 1966, in which the replacment of a roof was held to be necessary repairs. In spite of this precedent, which is directly in point, learned counsel for the landlord pressed into service Lakhi Ram v. Sagar Chand Civil Revision No. 495 of 1964 decided by Shamsher Bahadur, J on 23rd May, 1963, in which a wall and a roof of the disputed shop had completely fallen as a result of rains and the tenants application under section 12 of the Act for the reconstruction was disallowed by the Authorities below. Before the learned Judge M/s Sooramull Nagarmull v. Messrs Indian National Drug Co. 59 C.W. No. 1023 : AIR 1956 Calcutta 187, was cited on behalf of the tenant. On facts, the learned Judge in Lakhi Ram v. Sagar Chand and anr. Civil Revision No. 369 of 1962 filed by Lakhi Ram landlord, upheld order of eviction. It further deserves : For this reason the matter was not throughly considered. mention that the Calcutta view was also brought to the notice of Grover J. who distinguished it on the ground that the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act do not appear to be in pari materia with the provisions of section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

3. Learned counsel for the landlord next contended that the deciding factor in such like cases should be that the cost of repairs do in no way far exceed the quantum of rent payable by a tenant. I am unable to accept the contention because in the terms of section 12 of the Act, there is nothing to support it. As regards Bhagwant Rai v. Kirpal Kaur (Civil Revision No. 891 of 1965, decided by R.P. Khosla, J., on 19th January, 1967, cited by the learned counsel for the landlord, the same is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the landlord persisted in the view that the building had deteriorated to such an extent that extensive repairs were needed. Therefore, he was absolved from getting them executed. The authorities below did not find out whether the premises or any part thereof where liveable or not. The case was remanded by the learned Judge with the direction that the outer limit of the annual rent be kept in view. In other words, the decision of the authorities below