AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.C. Garg, J.—Petitioner filed an application u/s 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ''the Act'') for a direction to the respondent to effect repairs in the tenanted premises. During the pendency of this application, he moved another application u/s 151 of the CPC seeking a direction to the respondent-landlord to carry out repairs of urgent nature.
Learned Rent Controller by order dated June 15, 1992 declined the prayer for interim repairs. Aggrieved by this order, the tenant has filed the present revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is leakage in the roof of the tenanted premises and it needs immediate repairs so as to save the petitioner from the loss likely to be caused from such leakage. Learned counsel further submitted that learned Rent Controller erred in not granting the prayer of the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the petition The petitioner sought repairs in the shape of painting of doors windows, whitewashing, change of taps, switches and other necessary repairs. The tenanted premises are situated in Union Territory of Chandigarh. May be there is some leakage of water during peak rainy season but it cannot be said that this type of leakage needs immediate repairs. Thus, no fault can be found with the order of the Rent Controller.
There is, however another aspect of the matter. The main petition is at the initial stage, the petitioner having been permitted to file replication by October 15, 1992. The tenant before me undertook to file replication on or before August 18, 1993. He has been directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on August 18, 1993. Learned Rent Controller will accept the replication and post the case for evidence of the petitioner after framing necessary issues, if need be. and finally dispose of the matter on or before June 15,1994. Such a direction would save the petitioner from inconvenience and unnecessary harassment.
With the above direction, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.