JUDGMENT : KARAMAT HUSAIN, J. The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff, and out of the rent to which the plaintiff was found entitled, the defendant deducted Rs. 107, alleging that he had spent them as follows:— 2. Rs. 20 in colour-washing the reception rooms. 3. Rs. 80 re hankering during the rains of Christmas 1905. Rs. 7 for petty repairs of wood work. 4. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Cawnpore dismissed the claim holding that the defendant was justified in his action. Regarding the colour-washing he said: “The defendant apparently entered the house before the plaintiff had completed the making of the house habitable. His request to have some colour put in the washing used by the plaintiff appears to me to be a reasonable one, and the plaintiff appears to me to have gone out of his way to be disobliging by insisting on a white colour wash.”………………. “In the face of this warning (by the defendant that he would have the rooms colour washed if the plaintiff failed to do so), I am of opinion that the defendant was justified in doing the colour-washing.” 5. It is to be noticed that the defendant called no evidence to prove that the particular colour-washing in question was usually done in the houses in the neighbourhood. Regarding the hankering and the wood work repairs the learned Judge said:— “The defendant is an officer of the Royal Array Med iced Corps. Strictly speaking he should have gone through the procedure law down in section 19 of the above Act, but there is a long delay in the matter and the matter could be called urgent on sanitary grounds.”……………………. “Here again the plaintiff might just as well have obliged the defendant. The defendant's action in having these necessary works done may not have been in strict accordance with the law, but the plaintiff would have had to have carried them out by the decision of the Committee sooner or later, and he has not therefore been done any wrong.” 6. In revision it is urged that the defendant was bound to follow the procedure prescribed by Act II of 1902, and that the colour-washing in question is not within the definition of “repairs” in the said Act. 7. In revision it is urged that the defendant was bound to follow the procedure prescribed by Act II of 1902, and that the colour-washing in question is not within the definition of “repairs” in the said Act. 7. The expression “repairs” in the said Act is defined as follows :—“The expression ‘repairs’ to a house includes such repairs as are usually made to houses in the neighbourhood.” Section 19 (I) of the said Act runs as follows :— “If the owner fails to execute any repairs to a house which the tenant, being a military officer, considers necessary, the Cantonment Authority may, at the request of the tenant, and if it is satisfied that such repairs or any of them are necessary, by notice require the owner to execute such repairs or such of them as it may consider necessary within a period not less than fifteen days to be specified in the notice.” Section 22 is as follows:— “Where:—(a) the owner fails to comply with a notice issued under section 19, sub-section (I), and has not within fifteen days from the service of such notice required that the matter be referred to a Committee of Arbitration, or (b) a Committee of Arbitration decides that repairs are necessary, and the extent to which they are necessary, and specifies the period within which they are to be executed, and owner fails to execute them within such period, the Military Works Services or the Public Works Department shall, on the application of the tenant of the house, being a military officer, cause the repairs specified in the notice or, if the matter has been referred to Committee of Arbitration, in the decision of the Committee, to be executed at the expense of the tenant, and the tenant may deduct the cost thereof from the rent or otherwise recover it from the owner.” 8. The defendant violated the express provisions of the law in deciding himself that those repairs were necessary and in them himself executed. He therefore is not entitled to deduct the cost thereof from the rent. The particular colour-wash may have been necessary on sanitary grounds—a fact which was not pleaded and of which there is no evidence —but such a necessity cannot justify the breach of the law. He therefore is not entitled to deduct the cost thereof from the rent. The particular colour-wash may have been necessary on sanitary grounds—a fact which was not pleaded and of which there is no evidence —but such a necessity cannot justify the breach of the law. Likewise the facts that the Committee might have deemed the kankering and the wood work repairs necessary, and the plaintiff might have had sooner or later to execute them, do not exempt the defendant from the duty cast upon him by the law. For the above reasons I set aside the decree of the court below and decree the plaintiff's claim for Rs. 107, with costs in both courts.