Ajudhya Prasad vs Bhaskar Rao

Khan J.

This revision arises out of a small Cause suit, the facts of which are that the landlord brought a suit for the recovery of rent. The defendant did not dispute the amount of rent but submitted a counter-claim for Rs. 50/- on the ground that he had made some repairs and he wanted this amount to be deducted from the amount due. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff''s suit but rejected the cross claim of the defendant. Against this order, the defendant has filed this revision and the contention put forward on behalf of the defendant is that the expenses of repairs which he had incurred must be paid by the landlord.

In the first place, as to who should bear the expenses of repairs will be determined by the terms of a lease. But in the absence of a contract, the rights and liabilities of the lesser and lessee are determined by reference to Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the present case no contract has been proved by the defendant as to who would do the repairs. We have therefore to refer to Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 108(f) is as follows: --

If the lesser neglects to make, within a reasonable time after notice, any repairs which he is bound to make to the property, the lessee may make the same himself, and deduct the expense of such repairs with interest from the rent, or otherwise recover it from the lesser.

A perusal of this would show that the lesser is under no liability to repair the premises in the absence of an express contract. In fact Clause (m) of Section 108 implies that the liability for repairs in the absence of a contract is of the lessee. In this view of the matter I am afraid the defendant can not succeed in recovering what he spent in repairs.

The revision is disallowed. Parties to bear their own costs of this Court.