K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's writ petition against the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Saharanpur, on 12-8-1985 in Case No. 29 of 1985 Mohammad Rafi v. Meharban whereby the petitioner's application under section 28 of the V. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been rejected.
(2.) THE petitioner had approached the Prescribed Authority on the allegations that he was a tenant of the shop at the rent of Rs. 10/- per month and that the roof of the shop was not water-proof and it needed major repairs for which the petitioner had given notice to the landlord and had requested the landlord for effecting necessary repairs and his request has not been paid heed to, therefore, the application under section 28 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The landlord had refuted the allegations made in the petitioner's application and had asserted that the roof needed reconstruction and was not repairable. The cost of reconstruction would be more than Rs. 1000/-, therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the roof needed only major repairs was wholly incorrect and that the petitioner's application for major repairs was not maintainable. It had also been alleged that the plaintiff petitioner had wrongly estimated the cost of the alleged major repairs to the tune of Rs. 200/- only. Since the alleged repairs needed more than 2 years' rent, therefore, the prescribed authority had no jurisdiction to grant the application made by the petitioner. According to the landlord the application under section 28 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 could be granted only if the alleged major repairs needed cost less than two years' rent. The prescribed authority through its order dated 12-8-1985 rejected the petitioner's claim as is evident from Annexure I attached with the writ petition.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Prescribed Authority the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that the Prescribed Authority had patently erred in rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that the expenditure involved in effecting the alleged major repairs would be more than two years' rent payable by the petitioner. It had been emphasised before me that the Prescribed Authority should have directed the landlord for effecting major repairs as the roof of the petitioner's shop was not water-proof. The limitation of two years' rent was with a view that the tenant petitioner could not claim more than two years' rent from the landlord in case the tenant effects the major repairs.;