JUDGMENT
N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This is landlord’s revision petition against the order of the appellate authority whereby order of appellant Controller was reversed and premission granted to the respondent to effect the necessary repairs is respect of the premises in dispute.
2. Dass Kumar tenant filed an application under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioner for a direction to her for making necessary repairs in the demised premises. As per averments made by him, the roof of the shop leaks profusely daring the rainy season and so needs repairs. Ha had been requesting time and again the landlady to effect the necessary repairs, who has not acceded to his request. Hence this petition.
3. This application was contested by the respondent on the ground that effecting of repairs of the roof of the shop is in fact a clear device to frustrate the landlady’s petition for eviction of the shop on Use -ground that the same has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. According to the land-lady, the roof of the shop was likely to fall at any time. The Rent Controller declined to grant the premission sought.
4. The appellate authority after referring to the report of Shri Roop Chand Building Expert (AW-1), found merit in the submission of the counsel for the tenant and granted the premission to effect the necessary repairs as sought. The appellate authority after excluding the plastering of the exterior wall and anterior walls as well as laying of bricks with cement on the floor as suggested by the Expert granted minor repairs in respect of the following items only :
"1. Replacement of 2 Nos. wooden battens Rs. 250/-
of size 5" x 3" cost of two battens and labour
charges.
2. Roof tiling on terrace of the shop
74 sq. ft. cost of tiles, cement, sand and labour
etc. @ Rs. 5/ per sq. ft. Rs. 370/-
3. Providing C. C. floor of latrine 12 sq. ft.
@ Us. 8/- per sq. ft. Rs. 96/-
4. Providing 4" die C. K. Pipe for Parnala
12 Rft, Rs. 150/-"
Total : Rs. 866/-
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however sought reversal of the order of the appellate authority on the ground that since the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation which is subject-matter of the adjudication in a pending petition Under Section 13 of the Act, the permission granted by the appellate authority under Section 12 of the Act is per se illegal. According to the counsel. the appellate authority has erred in law is not taking into consideration the various documents including the photographs of the building which clearly depict the shop to be in a dilapidated condition. Cracks in the walls as well as in the roof are quite apparent. The building is about 100 years old and the premission sought by the respondent is merely to cover up these various cracks, to replace the wooden ballas and solely to defeat the ground alleged by the petitioner in application under Section 13 of the Act i.e., that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
6. I do not find much merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the simple reason that the appellate authority has only given permission to the respondent to effect repairs in respect of items referred above. There is no tangible material on record that under the garb of this order, the respondent would extend major repairs. This appears to be a mere apprehension.
7. Last submission of the learned counsel is that the observation of the appellate authority that the disputed shop is not unfit and unsafe for human habitation” was in fact not called for. There was no issue between the parties which otherwise also is a matter of adjudication in the pending rent application. I find merit in this submission of the petitioner and hold that this would not debar the Rent Controller from examining the matter independently of this observation of the appellate authority.
8. No other point has been pressed or urged. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is at liberty to carry out the repairs. However, he can deduct such amount from the rent. The parties to bear their own costs.