JUDGMENT G. C. Mathur, J. - The applicant is the tenant of a shop of which opposite party No. 2 is the landlord. The applicant filed an application in the Court of the Munsif, Rampur, under Sec. 7-E of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, praying for a direction to the landlord to repair the roof and western wall of the shop, so as to make the premises wind-proof and water-proof. The Munsif issued a commission and the commissioner reported that the western wall of the shop required reconstruction and the roof required replacement. According to the Commissioner the repairs to the wall and the roof will cost about Rs. 2,500/-. Before the Munsif the applicant offered that he would get the necessary repairs done in Rs. 1,000/- only. The main question which arose for consideration before the Munsif was whether the repairs sought by the applicant-tenant were really repairs for making the premises wind and water-proof or, as contended by the landlord, they were new and fresh constructions which could not be ordered under Sec. 7-E. The Munsif held that the entire building had not been demolished and was still in existence and, therefore, the tenant was entitled to the repairs for making the premises wind and water-proof. By order dated August 1, 1970, he directed the landlord to carry out the repairs within two months failing which the tenant would be entitled to get the repairs done himself and to deduct upo Rs. 1,000/- from the rent payable to the landlord. 2. Against the order of the Munsif the landlord filed a revision. The district Judge was of opinion that making of the premises wind-proof and water-proof did not cover the re-construction of the wall and the roof and, therefore, the Munsif was not justified in passing the order under Sec. 7-E. He allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Munsil and dismissed the tenants application. 3. Against the order of the District Judge the applicant filed a writ petition in this Court. Counter-affidavits and rejoinder-affidavits were filed by the parties. Thereafter the applicant converted the writ petit on into a revision under Sec. 115, C. P. C. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant first contended that the District Judge lad no jurisdiction in a revision to interfere with the findings and order of the Munsif. Counter-affidavits and rejoinder-affidavits were filed by the parties. Thereafter the applicant converted the writ petit on into a revision under Sec. 115, C. P. C. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant first contended that the District Judge lad no jurisdiction in a revision to interfere with the findings and order of the Munsif. There is no substance in this contention. The Munsif could order the landlord to carry out the repairs under Sec. 7-E only if the repairs sought by the tenant were repairs necessary for keeping the premises wind and water-proof. If the repairs were not of this nature, then the Munsif had no jurisdiction to pass any order under Sec. 7-E. Therefore, the question and the finding as to the nature of the repairs sought by the tenant were question and finding relating to jurisdictional fact. By wrongly deeding this fact the Munsif could not assume jurisdiction to pass an order under Sec. -7-E. With the finding on this jurisdictional fact the District Judge had jurisdiction to interfere in the revision. 5. The question then arises as to what was the nature of the repairs sought by the tenant in the present case. The tenant sought repairs contending that they were repairs necessary for keeping the shop wind and water-proof. From he report of the commissioner it is apparent that the western wall of the shop had fallen down and that it requires re-construction. It further appears from his report that the roof has very big cracks in it, that it had been propped up by vertical beams and a make shift pillar and that it required replacement. The question is whether the recons ruction of one entire wall of the shop and replacement of its roof amount only to repairs for making the shop wind and water-proof. Before coming to any conclusion it is necessary to refer to the decisions of this Court where the provision of Sec. 7-E came up for interpretation. 6. In Ram Krishna Gupta v. Hari Krishna Tandon, 1958 A.L.J. 435, the Munsif had ordered the landlord to fit a gate to the garage, to repair the soak-pit and flush latrine, to fix glass-panes in all the doors and windows and to repair the roof of the kitchen and the godown, which were leaking. 6. In Ram Krishna Gupta v. Hari Krishna Tandon, 1958 A.L.J. 435, the Munsif had ordered the landlord to fit a gate to the garage, to repair the soak-pit and flush latrine, to fix glass-panes in all the doors and windows and to repair the roof of the kitchen and the godown, which were leaking. In revision V. D. Bhargava, J. held that fixing of a gate to the garage, when the garage had 110 gate at the time of letting out, and the repairs of the soak-pit and flush latrine were no. covered by the requirement of keeping the accommodation wind and water-proof. He further held that the repaying of the leaking roofs of the kitchen and the godown and the fixing glass-panes in all the doors and windows only amounted to such repairs. The ratio of this decision is that a landlord is bound only to maintain the premises in the condition in which it was originally let out and that he was not bound to make any new constructions or additions to make the premises wind or water-proof. Emphasis was laid on the word "keeping" in the expression keeping the accommodation wind-proof and water-proof. 7. In Bepin Behari Chatterji v. The Munsif West, Allahabad, 1959 A.L.J. 227, two southern walls of the house had collapsed resulting in a major portion of the building becoming unsuitable for habitation. The question was whether the landlord could be directed under Sec. 7-E to rebuild the two walls. Tandon, J. held that he could not be so directed. He observed :- "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." It was held that the liability of the landlord was for repairs and not for re-construction. 8. The question again arose before a Division Bench of this Court in Trishul Dhari Prasad v. Bishun Deo Singh, 1971 A.L.J. 303. In this case on account of the demolition of the upper portion, the roof of the shop in dispute got damaged and some holes appeared in the walls. It was held by the Division Bench that the repairs to the roof and to the walls were covered by Sec. 7-E and were repairs for keeping the shop wind-proof and water-proof. In this case on account of the demolition of the upper portion, the roof of the shop in dispute got damaged and some holes appeared in the walls. It was held by the Division Bench that the repairs to the roof and to the walls were covered by Sec. 7-E and were repairs for keeping the shop wind-proof and water-proof. The Division Bench observed :- "The question, however, arises what is the scope of the word "repairs". If we look at a particular wall by itself and say that it requires repairs, it would not be the something as its reconstruction. But if we look to an accommodation so as to make it wind-proof and water-proof, it does not mean that repairs will not include reconstruction of any particular portion of the accommodation such as a wall or even the roof of an apartment in the accommodation. Reconstruction of the accommodation will mean substantially rebuilding the whole of it." What the Division Bench meant was that if an accommodation consisted of several looms and the roof or the wall of one of the rooms fell down, then the re-construction of the roof or the wall may amount to repairs for keeping the accommodation wind-proof or water-proof. But where the accommodation consisted of only one room and the roof fell down, then it could not be said to be a case of mere repairs for keeping the accommodation wind-proof and water-proof. 9. Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 7-E is in these words .- "(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." The sub-section deals with two types of repairs, namely, repairs for keeping the accommodation wind-proof and waterproof and other repairs. The landlord is obliged to keep the accommodation wind-proof and water-proof by Sec. 7-E and if he fails to fulfil his obligation, suitable orders can be passed under Sec. 7-E for securing the repairs. Other repairs to the accommodation can only be ordered, if any obligation is cast upon the landlord to carry them out under any other law or under the contract or custom. Other repairs to the accommodation can only be ordered, if any obligation is cast upon the landlord to carry them out under any other law or under the contract or custom. The normal connotation of the expression wind-proof and water-proof" is preventing the wind and water from entering into a premises through broken windows or doors or through cracks in the walls or roofs. Though in a larger sense keeping a premises wind proof and water-proof may be said to include the reconstruction of walls as well as of the roofs, as the falling down of any one of them will enable wind and water to enter the premises. But I think that in Sec. 7-E the expression has been used in the narrower normal sense of keeping the doors and windows intact and the roofs and walls free of cracks and holes. 10. In the present case the accommodation consists of a one room shop only. Its western wall has fallen down and the roof requires replacement. According to the counter-affidavit and the rejoinder-affidavit filed in the writ petition, there were only two walls in this shop-the eastern and the western-of which the western one has fallen down. According to the report of the commissioner it will cost Rs. 2,500/- to replace the wall and the roof. This will be equivalent to the rent of the premises for about 13 years, the rent being Rs. 16/- per month. According to the tenant the repairs can be carried out in about Rs. 1,000/-, which will be equal to about five years rent. The nature of the repairs required and the amount of expenditure involved clearly show that the repairs cannot be termed merely as repairs for keeping the premises wind-proof and water-proof. They are major repairs which amount substantially to re-construction of the shop in dispute. The Munsif had no jurisdiction under S. 7-E to order the landlord to carry out such repairs. The District Judge was fully justified in reversing the order of the Munsif. 11. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed But in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.