HAIDRUS AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT. RATNA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging an order dated 11th Dec., 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division-I), at Port flair rejecting the objection of the petitioners to the maintainability of a petition filed by the plaintiff/ opposite party under Order 39, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Regulation 28 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Rent Control Regulations, 1974.

(2.) The opposite party being the tenant filed a suit for declaration of his tenancy right. In the said suit, an application was taken out under Regulation 28 of the said Rent Control Regulations praying for orders for effecting repairs of the tenanted premises.

(3.) The petitioners being the landlord-defendants took a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the said application for repair inter aiia contending that notice under Regulation 28 (2) to the landlord was an essential pre-requisite for making such an application for repair. The objection of the petitioners being the landlord-defendants was upheld by the Trial Court and by the First Appellate Court. The tenant/opposite party, however, filed a Second Appeal which was disposed of by this Court (Harish Tandon, J.) by a judgment and order dated 13th Sept., 2012. This Court rejected the contention of the petitioners that notice to the landlord was an essential prerequisite for an application under Regulation 28 for repair. The Trial Court was directed to Consider the application for repairs on its merits.