J.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) This writ petition by the landlady is directed against the order dated 11.2.1998 passed by the respondent No. 1 allowing the application of respondent No. 2 moved under Section 28 (5) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
(2.) Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties counsel, this writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
(3.) According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 is the tenant in the disputed shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 70. It further appears that the respondent No. 2 served a notice dated 14.1.1992 on the landlady-petitioner calling upon her to repair the roof of the shop within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The respondent No. 2 thereafter on the expiry of notice period and on the failure of the landlady to get the roof repaired moved an application under Section 28 (5) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority. The landlady filed her reply infer alia alleging that the notice, which was served upon her was not valid as the same did not make any mention that the tenant was willing to pay the enhanced rent in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. It was further pleaded that the tenant is not in occupation of the shop and the same has been sub-let to Kali Charan respondent No. 3. She further alleged that the roof was in a good condition and in any case, repairs of the roof could not be carried out because of the fact that there is only one common roof of the shop and two residential rooms of the tenant. No estimate has been furnished by the tenant regarding the expenditure to be incurred in the repairs. By the impugned order the respondent No. 1 has allowed the tenant's application and has directed the petitioner to repair the roof in question within one month from the date of the order so as to make it water-proof and to submit the details of the expenses incurred in the repairs.;