TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lay against the order of the District Court made in revision under Section 12-B of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act; (ii) whether restoration of the cow-shed and bath-room amounted to a repair within Section 11 of the Act; and (iii) whether the cow-shed and bath-room were amenities within Section 8 of the Act and had been cut off or withheld by the landlord.
Issue (i): whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lay against the order of the District Court made in revision under Section 12-B of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Analysis: The District Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 12-B, functioned as a court subordinate to the High Court and not as a persona designata. An order passed by such a subordinate court was therefore open to revision under Section 115.
Conclusion: The preliminary objection to maintainability failed and the revision was maintainable.
Issue (ii): whether restoration of the cow-shed and bath-room amounted to a repair within Section 11 of the Act.
Analysis: Repair may involve renewal or replacement of subsidiary parts, but reconstruction of substantially the whole subject-matter is not a repair. On that distinction, replacement of a roof, floor, or wall of the cow-shed or bath-room would be repair, but complete restoration of those structures after destruction would amount to reconstruction, not repair. Section 11 therefore did not cover the relief sought.
Conclusion: The restoration sought was not a repair within Section 11.
Issue (iii): whether the cow-shed and bath-room were amenities within Section 8 of the Act and had been cut off or withheld by the landlord.
Analysis: Whether a facility is an amenity depends on the facts of each case. A bath-room enhances residential convenience and enjoyment, and a cow-shed may similarly be an essential amenity for a tenant keeping a cow. The concurrent findings below treated both as amenities and attributed their unavailability to the landlord's omission to prevent damage and to restore them.
Conclusion: The cow-shed and bath-room were amenities, and their unavailability amounted to cutting off or withholding those amenities by the landlord.
Final Conclusion: The High Court upheld the concurrent findings against the landlord and declined to interfere in revision, leaving the tenant's relief under the rent control statute intact.
Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of a rent control statute, a structure is a repair only if the work is confined to renewal or replacement of subsidiary parts; complete restoration of a destroyed structure is reconstruction, and a residential convenience that enhances use and enjoyment may qualify as an amenity even if it also serves an essential need.
TaxTMI 
