S.J. Khan, J. - (1.) This is landlords writ petition directed against order dated 29th May, 1986, passed by Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Konch District Jalaun in case No. (not given) Ram Gopal v. Pradeep Kumar under Sections 27 and 28 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The said order was passed on the application of tenant-respondent No. 2, Ram Gopal since deceased and survived by legal representatives. Through the impugned order landlord was directed to re-construct parapet (Munder) on the roof and place tin shed under the supervision of the tenant and tenant Ram Gopal was directed to get electricity connection at his own cost. It was further directed that in case landlord failed to carry out the said work, then tenant would be entitled to get the said work of repairing etc. done at his own cost and shall deposit the bill in the Court. Admittedly, no notice was given by the tenant to the landlord before filing the application on which impugned order was passed. Before the Prescribed Authority as well as this Court it was argued that application of the tenant was not maintainable without notice.
(2.) Section 27 of the Act provides for restoration of any amenity alleged to have been cut off including the amenity of electricity. Section 28 of the Act on the other hand provides for whitewashing and repairs. Prior notice is necessarily to be given by the tenant to the landlord under Section 28 of the Act but not under Section 27 of the Act. Accordingly prayer of repair in the application was not maintainable without prior notice. However, prayer for restoration of electricity was quite maintainable even without prior notice.
(3.) Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in part. Impugned order is set aside in respect of repairs including the construction of parapet (Munder) and placement of tin shed. However, the impugned order in respect of permission to the tenant to get the electricity installed at his own cost is maintained. Writ petition partly allowed.;