P L D 1965 (W (PLP)

3. The above condition of the premises must have been noted by the Rent Controller when he inspected them, but his order does not contain the details of the repairs that were to be made. He accepted the application of the present appellant and ordered as follows :‑ " I have therefore no other option but to direct the applicant to carry on the necessary repairs and the costs thereof may be deducted from the rent which is payable by him. The account of expenses incurred by the applicant shall be submitted to the local authority concerned which shall after due verification, clarify the costs of the repairs and the applicant may thereon deduct the amount so certified, from the rent payable by him." The above order indicates that there was nobody to decide as to what were the necessary repairs which were to be carried out and that this question was left open with a provision only that the costs of such repairs be ascertained by the Local Authority concerned. The Rent Controller had no power to issue such a direction to the Local Authority anti the power that he had, namely, to determine as to what repairs were necessary, was not exercised by him.

4. The landlord, who is the respondent in these proceedings, went in First Appeal against that order which was accepted, as pointed out above, by the learned District Judge, Hyderabad. The following observations made by the learned District Judge in his order are noteworthy:-- "The pleadings in the application filed by the respondent are vague inasmuch as they do not give any specification regarding necessary repairs but only claim a sum of Rs. 4091‑5‑3 for the purpose. It was only in course of the evidence that the point was developed." Further: "The law as contained in the Ordinance, particularly under section 12, also does not warrant the view that the landlord can be compelled by the tenant to make the premises according to his desire . . . Undoubtedly, the landlord must continue to maintain it as it was at the time of the contract, namely to keep it habitable and safe but he cannot be compelled to improve it according to the whims and desires of the tenant and against the will of the landlord." The learned Judge has pointed out that if a tenant chose to occupy premises the condition of which could not be tolerated by him, then the choice for him was either to stay on in it or to vacate them.

5. Counsel for the appellant, that is, the tenant, has urged in this Court against the order of the learned District Judge that the premises were inspected by the learned Judge in December 1961, in which he had observed that repairs were necessary and that they must be immediately carried out, but the final order, from which the above extracts have been reproduced, was made in July 1962, with the result that, according to counsel, the impressions were obliterated from his mind and he proceeded to make an order of a different nature from that of the inspection note. But this criticism is not correct, because the time spent upto the final order was not taken for writing the order. On the contrary the final hearing had yet to take place after the inspection. At the time of making the final order the learned District Judge had examined the situation more fully which he had not done at the time of making the inspection as has been pointed out by him in the Inspection Note in the following words: "I have just inspected the premises and whilst this is not a final order which will be passed after hearing counsel on either side specially Mr. Hassan Ahmad Shah who has certain legal pleas to make, I feel . . . . . .".

6. The appreciation of the legal pleas that the learned District Judge has set out in his order is, to my mind, correct. Counsel for the appellant has emphasized in these proceedings that the words "the necessary repairs other than structural alterations" which occur in section 12 of the Ordinance indicate that excepting for structural repairs, any other alteration can be ordered by the Rent Controller under the section. This view of the provision, to my mind, is erroneous. The structural alterations are excluded even if they be considered to be necessary, and the scope of the demand of the tenant is further limited by the words "necessary repairs". The word "repairs" indicates that work which is to be done to restore the previous condition of the premises. Further, the word "necessary" indicates that such restoration should be of a necessary nature. It is, therefore, to my mind, clearly wrong to take the view that the word "necessary repairs" have any connection with the conveniences which the tenant may propose to enjoy by remaining in the demised premises. If he chooses to take on rent premises of poor quality or in bad condition then he is entitled to live in such premises, and not to expect that improvements would be made so that he may live in better premises than those he bargained for when he entered into the contract.

7. In this case, as pointed out by the learned District Judge there is nothing to indicate that the work which the appellant desired to get done was of the nature of repairs, much less of the nature of "necessary repairs." The impression created on the mind of the learned Judge, therefore, rightly was that the object of the appellant was to get improvements made in the premises. That object could not be sustained under section 12 of the Ordinance.

8. I may add lastly that counsel for the appellant tried to create an impression in the end that, owing to the inspection of the learned District Judge made in December 1961, the appellant had actually spent Rs. 3,000 on the repairs of the premises, but counsel for the respondent pointed out that this was not the stand of the appellant even in the memo of this appeal. I may add that this was not the stand of the appellant at the time of the final order made by the learned District Judge, although it was made after a long time of the date of the inspection. The contention advanced by counsel for the appellant, therefore, does not deserve, consideration.

9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. K.B.A. Appeal dismissed.