JUDGMENT B. Dayal, J. - These are two connected revisions relating to the amount spent by the tenant on repairs of the building. Both these revisions are between the same parties and relate to repairs of the same building but for different periods. Civil Revision No. 1084 of 1960 arises out of a Small Cause Court suit filed by the landlord for arrears of rent. A defence was raised in that suit that certain repairs had been done which the landlord was bound to make under Sec. 7-E of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the tenant was entitled to deduction of the same. This defence was repelled and the suit was decreed. Against that decree a revision was filed before the District Judge after a very long time, and the learned District Judge rejected the revision on the ground of delay without going into the merits of the case. Against that order this revision has been filed. The other revision No. 616 of 1960 arises out of an application on the ground of arrears of rent under Sec. 7-B of the Act. In that case also the same defence about the repairs of the building was raised and has been repelled by the trial court as well as by the appellate court on appeal. This revision is filed against the appellate order dismissing the appeal in a proceeding under Sec. 7-B of the Act. 2. Both these revisions therefore raise the same question of law regarding interpretation of Sec. 7-E of the Mt. 3. Sec. 7-E of the Act is divided into 8 sub-sections. The first sub-section of the section relates to the liability of the landlord. Sub-Sec. (2) merely clarified the position with regard to annual white-washing re-colouring and periodical repairs, This sub-Sec. (2) by itself is merely an explanatory section and does not create rights. Sub-Sec. (3) of the section is a procedural section which gives a right to the tenant to give notice and spend money over the kinds of repairs mentioned in sub-Sec. (2) thereof. Sub-Sec. (4) gives power to the tenant to go to the Munsif and ask for an order directing the landlord to make re-pairs other than those mentioned in sub-Sec. (3) Sub-Secs. Sub-Sec. (4) gives power to the tenant to go to the Munsif and ask for an order directing the landlord to make re-pairs other than those mentioned in sub-Sec. (3) Sub-Secs. (5) and (6) of the section relate to procedures to be followed by the Munsif if an application under sub-Sec. (4) is made. Sub-Sec. (7) places restriction on the power of the Munsif to pass orders and sub-Sec. (8) relates to appeals. Sub-Sec. (1) therefore is the only sub-section which defines respective rights and liabilities of the landlord and ten-ant. This sub-section is as follows :- "7-E (1). Every landlord shall be bound 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 sub-Sec. (1) therefore clearly. divides the repairs into two kinds. The first kind of repairs are such repairs which are intended to keep the accommodation wind-proof and water-proof, These repairs the landlord is bound to do irrespective of any other law, contract or custom, while "other repairs" the landlord has been directed to do only when he is bound to do them by any law, contract or custom. 4. Thus whenever a question arises whether a landlord is bound to make particular repairs which the tenant wants him to do, the question has to be decided with reference to the provisions of sub-Sec. (1) read with sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 7-E. If the repairs are such which can be called repairs for the purpose of keeping the house wind-proof and water-proof, then the landlord is liable to make those repairs but if the repairs are not such as would be covered by the word "any other repair" then the landlord would not be bound to do so unless some law contract or custom makes the landlord liable to do so. 5. The contention that the language of sub-Sec. (3) makes it clear that the legislature wanted to place the responsibility of making white-washing recolouring and annual periodical repairs a liability of the landlord irrespective of any law contract or usage does not appear to be justified. Sub-Sec. (3) starts with the words "if the landlord fails to carry out annual white-washing, recolouring and periodical repairs," thereby connecting itself with the previous sub-sections. Sub-Sec. (3) starts with the words "if the landlord fails to carry out annual white-washing, recolouring and periodical repairs," thereby connecting itself with the previous sub-sections. This does not say that the landlord is bound to make these repairs in every case and if he fails to make these repairs the tenant may give notice. The only meaning that can be ascribed to sub-Sec. (3) is that in case the landlord is liable to make those repairs and he fails to do so then the tenant may give notice and after such notice if the landlord fails to do the repairs the tenant may himself do the repairs and in so doing may spend one month's rent. This sub-section seems to be a summary remedy to the tenant for getting the annual repairs done if the landlord is bound to do so but neglects to do the same. The tenant cannot spend more than one month's rent in annual repairs including white washing and recolouring. Sub-Sec. ,(4) of the section gives a right to the tenant to go to the Munsif and apply there for the purpose of forcing the landlord to make other repairs. This sub-section relates to the kind of repairs which the landlord is bound to make other than the annual repairs, white-washing and recolouring. In is this sub-section the relevant words used are "if the landlord neglects to carry out any repairs other than the annual repairs which he is bound to make to the accommodation by law or contract" This phrase "if the landlord neglects to carry out repairs . . . . which he is bound to make to the accommodation" confines the operation of this sub-section to repairs which the land lord is bound to make. Thus the court can only force the landlord to make the repairs which he is bound to do either under sub-Sec. (1) of the section or under any other law contract or usage. 6. In these cases the expenses claimed are only for colouring and white-washing which cannot be needed for keeping the building wind-proof and water-proof. No other law, contract or usage is pleaded to make the landlord liable for the same and Sec. 7-E of the Act does not place that responsibility upon the landlord. 6. In these cases the expenses claimed are only for colouring and white-washing which cannot be needed for keeping the building wind-proof and water-proof. No other law, contract or usage is pleaded to make the landlord liable for the same and Sec. 7-E of the Act does not place that responsibility upon the landlord. The same view was taken by two learned single Judges of this Court in Ram Kishan Gupta v. Hari Kishan Tandon, 1958 A.L.J. p. 435 and Manorama Devi v. Shital Prasad, 1961 A.L.J. p. 145. A contrary view was expressed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Kailash Chand Jain v. Munsif (West) Allahabad, 1958 A.L.J. p. 853. The relevant observation in that case is as follows :- "But this petition can be disposed of on the short point, that no right of the petitioner has been prejudiced by the order of the learned Munsif. In the absence of any contract between the parties a tenant has a right, under Sec. 7-E of the Rent control and Eviction Act to demand only two Categories of repairs from the landlord. First, the landlord is bound to keep the accommodation wind-/ and waterproof. Secondly he must do annual white-washing, recolouring and the periodical repairs. If the landlord neglects to make these two kinds of repairs the tenant can make an application under Sec. 7-E and obtain an order of the court compelling him to do the repairs." There remarks are not based upon any critical analysis of the section and on the face of it are not consistent with the language of the section itself. As noted above, sub-Sec. (4) relates to the right of the tenant to go to the Munsif and that sub-section makes an exception with regard to white-washing, recolouring and annual repairs so that no application can be made before the Munsif for such expenses and such repairs. The observation of the learned single Judge does not appear to lay down good law. 7. In the result, we see no force in these revisions and dismiss them with Costs.