Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is an application by the plaintiff Prahlad to revise the decree of the Judge of Small Causes Court, Jodhpur dated 31. 7. 1954. The plaintiff-applicant is a tenant and the defendant-opposite party is landlord. The applicant has a shop of the defendant in his tenancy, the rent of which is Rs. 17/8/- per month. According to the plaintiff, the defendant removed the outer door of the shop and when asked, did not put it back. The plaintiff then applied to the First Class City Magistrate, Jodhpur under sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950) hereinafter to be referred to as the Rent Control Act ). The Magistrate ordered on 19. 12. 1952 that the landlord should put up the door immediately. The landlord did not comply with the order, but went in appeal to the court of the Collector, Jodhpur, but the same was dismissed on 15. 1. 1953. Even after the dismissal of the appeal, the defendant landlord did not put up the door. The plaintiff again moved the Magistrate on 16. 1. 1953 and complained that landlord had not complied with his order. The Magistrate again issued notice to the landlord, but inspite of it, she did not appear before the Magistrate. The Magistrate, thereupon, ordered the plaintiff that he might put the door himself and produce the bill for realisation of the amount from the landlord before the Magistrate. The plaintiff says that he got the door prepared and had to spend Rs. 134/8/6 thereon and had also to spend Rs. 25/- on other necessary repairs besides Rs. 0/8/6, for notice expenses. He filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 160/- against the landlord defendant in the Small Causes Court Jodhpur.
(2.) A number of objections were taken by landlord defendant in his written statement, but at this stage I am concerned with only one, viz. whether the plaintiff could file a civil suit in respect of the amount, he had spent on putting up a door and other necessary repairs. This question has been decided against the plaintiff by the learned Judge of the court below by judgment under revision. I have heard Shri Vishinlal for the applicant and Shri Jaswantraj for the opposite party. It has been argued by Shri Vishinlal that the learned Judge was wrong in holding that no suit in respect of the amount in question could lie in civil court and that the remedy was only by way of an application under sec. 12 of the Rent Control Act. It was argued that the plaintiff had a right to recover the amount spent on repairs under sec. 108-B (f) of the Transfer of Property Act. As the landlord did not make the repairs in question after notice, the appellant was entitled either to deduct that amount from the rent, or otherwise recover it from lessor. It was argued that sec. 12 of the Rent Control Act did not bar the pre$ent suit and that under the said section, the tenant could only apply to Magistrate that the landlord be ordered to restore the amenities from the enjoyment of which the tenant has been disturbed and to award to the tenant by way of costs or damages or both, such sum of money, not exceeding one hundred rupees as he might consider reasonable in the circumstances of the case. It was argued that under sec. 12 of the Rent Control Act), the Magistrate has got no power to recover the costs of repairs incurred by the tenant. Further, it was argued that under sec. 28 of the Rent Control Act, it has been provided that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not derogatory of, any other law on the subject for the time being in force in the whole or any part of Rajasthan. On behalf of the opposite party, Shri Jaswantraj has not seriously contested the legal point raised by Shri Vishinlal. He has only said that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the finding of the learned lower court about the non-maintainability of the suit is wrong, the suit might be remanded to the lower court. In view of the legal question raised however, I will like to examine whether the view taken by the lower court is correct. Under sec. 108-B (f) of the Transfer of Property Act, a lessee has been given the right to make any repairs which the lessor is bound to make to the property, but neglects to make after a reasonable notice and to deduct the expenses of such repairs with interest from the rent, or otherwise recover it from the lessor. There could, therefore, be no doubt that unless expressly or impliedly barred by any other provision of law, the lessee can recover such costs of repairs by a civil suit. Now, the stand taken by the lower court is that by virtue of sec. 12 of Rent Control Act, a suit for the recovery of such costs of repairs, as have been claimed by the plaintiff, is barred. Sec. 12 of the Rent Control Act runs as follows - "disallowance of amenities: - (1) No landlord shall without the previous permission of the Magistrate, in any way distubhis tenant in the peaceful enjoyment of the benefits arising from electric and water connections and other amenities attached to the premises let to him provided the charges in respect thereof are duly paid by the tenant unless such charges are included in the amount of the standard rent decreed under Sec. 6. (2) Where on an application from a tenant, it appears to the Magistrate that the landlord has, without sufficient cause, contravened the provisions of sub-sec. (1), the Magistrate shall, on such conditions as he may think fit to impose on either party, order the landlord to restore the amenities so disturbed and may, in any case, award to the tenant, by way of costs or, damages or both, such of money, not exceeding one nundred rupees as he may consider reasonable in the circumstances of the case. " It would appear from the wordings of the section that under sub-sec. (2), the Magistrate can call upon the landlord to restore the amenities from the enjoyment of which the tenant has been disturbed by landlord and may award to the tenant, by way of costs or, damages or both, such sum of money, not exceeding one hundred rupees as he might think reasonable in circumstances of the case. No power has been given to the Magistrate under the aforesaid section to recover that amount spent by the tenant on necessary repairs. He can only award costs or, damages or both, for a sum of money not exceeding one hundred rupees. The word 'amenities' used in sec. 12 appears to be distinct from the costs of maintenance and repairs as is clear from the wordings of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 6, which runs as follows: - "where for any reason it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any premises on the principles set out in sub-sec. (2), the Court shall determine such rent, having, due regard to the pre-war rent, the prevailing rent or standard rent for similar premises in the same locality, the various amenities (such a electricity, water connection, sanitary fitting and the like) attached to the premises, the cost of construction, maintenance and repairs thereof, the special reasons, if any, proved by the plaintiff and other relevant considerations. " It would appear from the wordings of the aforesaid provision that the amenities mean electricity, water connection, sanitary fittings and the like. The replacing of the door or making other repairs, to my mind do not come within the meaning of word 'amenities' as used herein Sec. 12, therefore, to my mind, does not apply to the facts of the present Case. Even if we take it that the replacing of the door was the restoration of an amenity as used in the Act, the Magistrate was not entitled to award more than Rs. 100/- as costs or damages or both. The repairs to a building or the necessary reconstruction or replacing of a part of that building might cost much more and it would be very unreasonable if the remedy of the tenant to recover costs of repairs which exceed Rs. 100/- should be impliedly barred by the provision of sec. 12. There is another reason why sec. 12. cannot be taken to have barred the right of a tenant which he has in addition to the right conferred by the Rent Control Act. Under sec. 28, it has been provided that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to or, and not derogatory of, any other law on the subject for the time being in force in the whole or any part of Rajasthan. The right of the tenant, therefore, under sec. 12 is in addition to the right given to him by sec. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and the provisions of the said section are not derogatory of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act in regard to the right of the tenant to recover the costs of repairs, from the landlord. Learned lower court has relied upon certain rulings, which appear to be beside the point In the case of Dr. Brij Beharilal vs. Emperor through Municipal Board, Saharanpur (1) all that has been held is that if a statutory authority is created and it is armed with statutory powers and in the exercise of those powers any person receives an injury and the statute provides a special tribunal and an exclusive remedy for the redress of this wrong then the person aggrieved must seek that remedy and no other and to that extent, the jurisdiction of the Civil court to grant redress for wrongs committed against a person or his property is ousted. In the present case, on statutory authority has in the exercise of powers conferred upon it by statute, caused injury to the plaintiff. The ruling therefore, does not apply to the facts of the present case Another ruling relied on is that of the case of Secretary of State vs. Kameshwar Singh Bahadur (2 ). It has been held therein, "if any private right is interfered with under the authority of any statute and no remedy is provided in the statute itself, the aggrieved party has none; but if a remedy has been given in the statute, the aggrieved party can get that remedy only in the manner stated, provided always that those in authority who interfere with private rights do so strictly according to the mode prescribed in the statute," In this case, no private right has been interfered with under the authority of any statute and the ruling obviously does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case of Rentala Naresimdha Rao vs. Rentala Venkatar amana Rao (3) also it has been held that ordinarily when a right is created by a special statute, and a remedy is provided by that very statute for cases of violation of that right the party aggrieved must pursue the remedy given by the statute. The right of a tenant to recover the costs of repairs has not been created by the Rent Control Act. This right has been given to him by sec. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. This Madras ruling too, therefore does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the of Jogen-dra Nath Banerjee vs. Tollyganj Municipality (4), it was held that if a duty is implied by a statute, which, but for the statute does not exist and a remedy for default or breach of that duty is provided by the statute that creates the duty,that is the only remedy. The duty of the landlord to make necessary repairs existed, irrespective of the provisions of sec. 12 of the Rent Control Act and, therefore, the ruling relied upon by the learned lower court cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In the case of Joliprasad Upadhiya vs. Amba prasad (5) relied upon by the lower court the question was whether a tribunal having been provided for the trail of election case under the U. P. District Boards Act, a civil court had power to try a suit challenging the validity of the election. The facts of that case were also quite different. It was the U. P. District Boards Act itself, which had provided for the creation of the District Boards and the elections of the members and the chairman and a remedy had been provided by way of moving the tribunal. It was therefore, taken that a suit under sec. 9 of the Civil procedure Code did not lie. It the circumstances of this case it was not necessary for me to go into all there rulings but because the learned Judge of the lower court has taken a mistaken view of them and has given a decision on a point of law which might arise in other cases also, I have gone through these rulings and have been constrained to deliver a judgment, which is longer than it ought to have been. It is very necessary while relying upon the decisions of various High Courts to go into the facts carefully and not to be led away only by the head-notes or by a mere impression, which the court forms in relation to them. Had the learned Judge of the lower court taken pains to go through these rulings carefully, he would not have wasted so much time of his and also of this Court. The application for revision is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower court are set aside and the case is sent back to it for decision on merits and in accordance with law. The costs of this revision shall abide the result in the lower court after its decision. . ;