Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) A landlord from District Nainital one Mohd. Nabi has petitioner this Court against the order of the Munsif Rudrapur, dated 9th February, 1987, passed under Section 26 and Section 28 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, that he is aggrieved on being directed to carry out repairs in the accommodation, a shop. It is not in issue between the landlord and his tenant that the roof of this accommodation has sprung a leak. The Munsif, Rudrapur, acting as the Prescribed Authority permitted the tenant to carry out the repairs, should the landlord decline.
(2.) The argument advanced to sustain the present petition is that the petitioner landlord has filed a suit in pursuance of Section 20 of the Act aforesaid, for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that he has damaged the accommodation and carried out material alterations in it. This suit of the petitioner-landlord, unfortunately, has been rejected and it is stated at the Bar that the decision has been assailed before the District Judge. In that jurisdiction, should the landlord succeed, he will have an advantage of evicting the tenant and having the accommodation released in his favour.
(3.) From this accommodation, it is a matter of record and not in issue, that the landlord derives an annual rent of Rs. 4040. The landlord submits that the tenant himself is to blame for the leaking roof consequent upon having carried out material alterations. The tenant says that there have not been any repairs so as to put the building into such a condition that it will not leak. The learned Munsif has mentioned in the order which has been impugned, that the landlord will carry out ordinary repairs so that the roof will not leak. The landlord given a chance, would rather not.;