Muhammad Siddique respondent is in possession of a portion of house No. 12/C urban area Block No. 29, Sargodha, as tenant under the appellants.
2. In December, 1978 he submitted an application under section 12 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 before the learned Rent Controller, Sargodha, praying that appellants might be directed to carry out the repairs to the roofs of the portion of the house in possession of the respondent as tenant.
3. The petition filed by the respondent was resisted by the appellants inter alia on the ground that they (the appellants) had already filed an application before the Controller, seeking ejectment of the respondent and therefore, he had filed application for repairs as a counterblast. According to the appellants, no details of repairs were given in the application under section 12 and in fact the appellants themselves lived on the upper floor of the house and no damage was done to the roofs of the portion in occupation of the respondent.
4. The learned Controller without holding any formal enquiry found vide his order dated 28-3-1979 that since the appellants themselves had filed the ejectment petition on the plea of reconstruction of the tenanted premises, it, therefore, followed that the said premises needed repairs. He consequently directed the appellants to carry out the requisite repairs to the roofs of the premises in occupation of the respondent within 15 days of his order failing which he permitted the respondent to himself get the roofs repaired and to deduct the costs from the rent.
5. The appellants preferred an appeal before the learned. Appellate Authority and the said learned Authority i. e. The. Additional District Judge, Sargodha, dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 15-7-1979.
6. The present second appeal has been directed against the aforesaid orders dated 28-3-1979 and 15-7-1979 passed by the leaned Controller and the learned Appellate Authority, Sargodha, respectively.
7. In the impugned orders passed by both the learned Courts below the details of the repairs have not been given. It has simply been directed that the roofs of the premises under tenancy with the respondent be got repaired.
8. As already observed, no enquiry whatsoever has been held by the learned Controller about the bona fides of the request regarding repair of the respondent, although the appellants had expressly raised the plea that the respondent had filed the application as a counterblast to their application seeking his ejectment. No costs of the proposed repairs have been determined either by the learned Courts below. Repairs to roofs are ordinarily carried out by pulling down the existing structure and to reconstruct the same with the same material or different material. Thus it practically amounts to replace--ment of roofs which in turn is structural alteration. A landlord can be directed under section 12 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, to carry out necessary repairs to the tenanted premises but he cannot be compelled to carry out structural alterations at hiscosts. The learned Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority have failed to determine as to whether the repairs ordered by them through the impugned orders amounted to necessary repairs within the meaning of section 12 or to structural alterations. In Munir Ahmad and 8 others v. Kishomal (PLD 1977 Kar. 466) it was held that replacement of roofs or wooden beams and rafts by another roof of same material or of different material amounted to structural altera--tions which a landlord could not be compelled to carry out at his costs.
9. In the light of what has been said above, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the learned Controller with a direction that he should conduct enquiry into the matter in accordance with law to ascertain as to whether the repairs sought to be carried out were factually essential and amounted to necessary repairs within the meaning of section 12 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, or the same were structural alterations which a landlord cannot be compelled to carry out. Pursuant to the result of his enquiry, he may pass the appro--priate order. No order, however, it made as to costs.