JUDGMENT J.K. Tandon, J. - The petitioner is purchaser of house no. 160/15 situate at Law-renceganj, Allahabad, which previously belonged to the Allahabad Trading and Banking Corporation Ltd. He purchased it in December 1954. Raj Kumar Ghosh, respondent No. 2, lived in the house as a tenant of the landlord. On 1st September 1955 there were heavy rains at Allahabad as a result two southern walls of this house collapsed, resulting in a major portion of the building becoming unsuitable for habitation. The petitioner's allegation further is that the rebuilding of the house was necessary, therefore, Raj Kumar Ghosh, respondent no. 2, shifted into another house but remained in possession of the small portion in dispute which was still standing. Therefore he started the construction of broken walls which, however, had to be stopped on 7th April 1955 at the objection of the Municipal Board. The petitioner then submitted plans to the Municipal Board of the proposed reconstruction. At first respondent no. 2 acceded to the request of the petitioner to vacate the house but later he made an application under Sec. 3-E of the U. P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act before the Munsif complaining that the petitioner had failed to keep the house wind proof and water proof. The petitioner resisted the above application inasmuch as the accommodation had wind proof and fallen down and it was not a case of keeping an accommodation water proof when the accommodation itself had ceased to exist. On the above application the Munsif made an order dated 15th February 1957 directing the petitioner to carry out the necessary repairs within three months. The present petition is directed against the above order of the Munsif which, as earlier noticed, is attacked on the ground that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to make the order in the circumstances of the present case. 2. Sec. 7-E of the U. P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act places an obligation on every landlord to keep the accommodation in the occupation of a tenant wind proof and water proof and to carry out other repairs which he is bound to make by law, contracts or custom. Under sub-sec. 2. Sec. 7-E of the U. P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act places an obligation on every landlord to keep the accommodation in the occupation of a tenant wind proof and water proof and to carry out other repairs which he is bound to make by law, contracts or custom. Under sub-sec. (4) the tenant has a right to apply to the Munsif having jurisdiction for an order to the landlord for carrying out any repairs which the landlord is bound to make to the accommodation under any law or contract. The next sub-section authorises the Munsif that if the landlord appears and fails to satisfy him as to why the landlord should not be asked to carry out the repairs as he is bound to make, he may direct him to carry out the same within the time to be fixed. Clearly enough the Munsif has in the present case acted under these provisions of Sec. 7-E. But there is one curious fact about his order and it is while he had directed the petitioner the opposite party before him to carry out the necessary repairs within three months, neither the nature of the repairs nor their details have been mentioned. As the order stands, it is not possible to read in it the particulars which the petitioner was directed to carry out in the form of repairs. This ambiguity or rather vagueness in the order of the learned Munsif prominently stands at its place and no doubt has bearing on the order itself made by him. 3. It appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 that so far as he was concerned he did not admit that two southern walls had fallen down. According to him, a portion only of the southern wall had originally collapsed rendering only one of the two southern rooms useless and unworthy of occupation. The remaining southern wall was pulled down by the petitioner himself . though with his consent with the promise that he would rebuild the walls as also the roofs of the two rooms rested on them. In the words of the respondent: "It was at the request of the applicant and his undertaking that the deponent shifted temporarily to the remaining portion of the house and permitted the applicant to rebuild the southern portion which consisted of the two main rooms." 4. In the words of the respondent: "It was at the request of the applicant and his undertaking that the deponent shifted temporarily to the remaining portion of the house and permitted the applicant to rebuild the southern portion which consisted of the two main rooms." 4. In view of the above assertion in the counter affidavit it was clear that at one stage, prior to the making of the application to the Munsif under Sec. 7-E, the southern portion of the house had been dismantled to be rebuilt over again. The dispute is so far only that according to the petitioner this portion had fallen down and become dangerous and had to be dismantled on account of notice sent by the Municipal Board under Sec. 307 of the Municipalities Act and according to the respondent with his consent but under a compromise that he will be permitted to reoccupy it after the reconstruction. Here it also may be stated that the respondent's claim before the Munsif was that the above reconstruction should be carried out by the petitioner, which he claimed to be necessary on the ground that the landlord was bound to keep the accommodation wind proof and water proof. The learned counsel for the respondent has accordingly contended that the order of the Munsif, though lacking in details as to the constructions to be done, required the carrying out of the above constructions. 5. Sec. 7-E (1) to which reference was made earlier binds a landlord to keep the accommodation in the occupation of a tenant wind proof and water proof and to carry out other repairs which he is bound to make by law, contract or custom. This provision inherently presupposes the existence of an accommodation which the landlord is bound to maintain wind-proof and water-proof and to mend it or restore it by such other repairs as he may be bound by law or custom. Where, therefore, the accommodation has fallen down, either entirely or substantially, there is no accommodation which the landlord can be asked to keep wind-proof or water-proof or to repair. In the present case on the Munsif's own finding the southern portion of the building had ceased to exist. Where, therefore, the accommodation has fallen down, either entirely or substantially, there is no accommodation which the landlord can be asked to keep wind-proof or water-proof or to repair. In the present case on the Munsif's own finding the southern portion of the building had ceased to exist. "Whether the whole of it fell down in the rains or any portion of it was demolished, because the Municipal Board had served a notice under Sec. 307 or there was any understanding between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent on the other to do so, the fact remained that the accommodation had ceased to exist. The case no longer was of carrying out any repairs or keeping the accommodation wind proof or water proof. On the contrary, it was a case of reconstruction of the accommodation which the respondent wanted to be enforced under Sec. 7-E. Here it may usefully be stated that the only other portion left after the southern rooms had been dismantled was one small living room and kitchen and both room and latrine. The living portion as such had substantially ceased to exist. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent has next urged that Sec. 7-E compelled a landlord to carry out repairs which he may have agreed with the tenant to do and that in this view of the matter the reconstruction of the southern rooms could be asked by the learned Munsif under the section. The section compels a landlord to carry out other repairs which he is bound to make by law, contract or custom.' The work which he has to carry out has, therefore, to be repairs and not reconstruction of the building itself. What the section, therefore, contemplated is that any repairs for which the landlord may have contracted shall be done by him but he cannot under cover of repairs be asked to reconstruct a building itself which has fallen down and needs to be redone from foundation to roof. 7. Sec. 7-E is a very exceptional type of remedy. It allows a tenant by summary proceedings to require a landlord to carry out essential repairs to the accommodation necessary for reasonably maintaining it. The order of the Munsif passed under the section is final and no appeal lies there from. The word 'contract' used in sub-sec. 7. Sec. 7-E is a very exceptional type of remedy. It allows a tenant by summary proceedings to require a landlord to carry out essential repairs to the accommodation necessary for reasonably maintaining it. The order of the Munsif passed under the section is final and no appeal lies there from. The word 'contract' used in sub-sec. (1) has, therefore, to be interpreted in the context of repairs in which relation it has been used. It will not include cases where by some subsequent agreement, as here, the landlord and the tenant may have agreed to improve or reconstruct the accommodation which will naturally require the entire contract to be judged and the respective rights the parties to be finally decided. 8. Sec. 7-E has thus no application to cases which do not fall within the description of repairs. The learned Munsif has found on one of the issues framed by him that there was an agreement between the parties by virtue of which the respondent gave up possessions of two rooms to enable the petitioner to repair and reconstruct it. He held that the portion had to be reconstructed; and although he used the word repair also along with it, it made no difference. Because admittedly the southern rooms had ceased to exist and required to be reconstructed: Sec. 7-E did not under the circumstances authorise the Munsif to make an order for the carrying out of the constructions which were not in the nature of repairs. The order passed by him was clearly beyond the jurisdiction given to him by this section. 9. It was also urged that this Court does not usually interfere by a writ under Article 226 even though there be an illegality in the order if no injustice has otherwise taken place. The argument is that the petitioner had contracted to reconstruct the house and he has been asked to do what he has otherwise himself agreed. I do not think this is a proper case in which this Court will decline to interfere on any such ground. The argument is that the petitioner had contracted to reconstruct the house and he has been asked to do what he has otherwise himself agreed. I do not think this is a proper case in which this Court will decline to interfere on any such ground. The exact terms on which the petitioner had agreed, if at all, to reconstruct the building and to allow the same to remain in the possession of the respondent have not been enquired into by the learned Munsif and in the absence of that material it cannot be inferred that no injustice has been caused to the petitioner. 10. In view of what has been said above the order of the Munsif dated 15th February 1957 directing the petitioner to carry out the necessary repairs was illegal and without jurisdiction. The same has, therefore, to be quashed and I order accordingly. The petitioner will get his costs from respondent No. 2.