J.K. Tandon, J. - (1.) The petitioner is purchaser of house no. 160/15 situate at Law-renceganj, Allahabad, which previously belonged to the Allahabad Trading and Banking Corporation Ltd. He purchased it in December 1954. Raj Kumar Ghosh, respondent No. 2, lived in the house as a tenant of the landlord. On 1st September 1955 there were heavy rains at Allahabad as a result two southern walls of this house collapsed, resulting in a major portion of the building becoming unsuitable for habitation. The petitioner's allegation further is that the rebuilding of the house was necessary, therefore, Raj Kumar Ghosh, respondent no. 2, shifted into another house but remained in possession of the small portion in dispute which was still standing. Therefore he started the construction of broken walls which, however, had to be stopped on 7th April 1955 at the objection of the Municipal Board. The petitioner then submitted plans to the Municipal Board of the proposed reconstruction. At first respondent no. 2 acceded to the request of the petitioner to vacate the house but later he made an application under Sec. 3-E of the U. P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act before the Munsif complaining that the petitioner had failed to keep the house wind proof and water proof. The petitioner resisted the above application inasmuch as the accommodation had wind proof and fallen down and it was not a case of keeping an accommodation water proof when the accommodation itself had ceased to exist. On the above application the Munsif made an order dated 15th February 1957 directing the petitioner to carry out the necessary repairs within three months. The present petition is directed against the above order of the Munsif which, as earlier noticed, is attacked on the ground that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to make the order in the circumstances of the present case.
(2.) Sec. 7-E of the U. P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act places an obligation on every landlord to keep the accommodation in the occupation of a tenant wind proof and water proof and to carry out other repairs which he is bound to make by law, contracts or custom. Under sub-sec. (4) the tenant has a right to apply to the Munsif having jurisdiction for an order to the landlord for carrying out any repairs which the landlord is bound to make to the accommodation under any law or contract. The next sub-section authorises the Munsif that if the landlord appears and fails to satisfy him as to why the landlord should not be asked to carry out the repairs as he is bound to make, he may direct him to carry out the same within the time to be fixed. Clearly enough the Munsif has in the present case acted under these provisions of Sec. 7-E. But there is one curious fact about his order and it is while he had directed the petitioner the opposite party before him to carry out the necessary repairs within three months, neither the nature of the repairs nor their details have been mentioned. As the order stands, it is not possible to read in it the particulars which the petitioner was directed to carry out in the form of repairs. This ambiguity or rather vagueness in the order of the learned Munsif prominently stands at its place and no doubt has bearing on the order itself made by him.
(3.) It appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 that so far as he was concerned he did not admit that two southern walls had fallen down. According to him, a portion only of the southern wall had originally collapsed rendering only one of the two southern rooms useless and unworthy of occupation. The remaining southern wall was pulled down by the petitioner himself . though with his consent with the promise that he would rebuild the walls as also the roofs of the two rooms rested on them. In the words of the respondent: "It was at the request of the applicant and his undertaking that the deponent shifted temporarily to the remaining portion of the house and permitted the applicant to rebuild the southern portion which consisted of the two main rooms.";