JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - The defendant-applicant has preferred this revision against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Sharanpur, decreeing the plaintiff-opposite party's suit for arrears of rent and damages and also for ejectment of the defendant. 2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-applicant. The defendant applicant resisted the suit on the ground that he was not a defaulter, he had been tendering rent to the plaintiff-landlord but he refused to accept the same. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff did not carry out annual repairs in the premises inspite of notices. Thereupon he himself carried out the repairs and for the purpose he deducted a sum of Rs. 20/- (one month's rent) towards expenses from the rent. The defendant deposited the entire amount minus Rs. 20/-in the trial court before hearing of the suit commenced. The Judge, Small Cause Court, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the finding that the defendant-applicant had not committed any default. On the plaintiff's revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act, District Judge, Saharanpur, set aside the order of the trial court and decreed the plaintiff's suit for defendant's ejectment. Hence this revision. 3. The sole question involved in the instant case is whether the defendant-applicant was entitled to carry out the repair and deduct one month's rent. The trial court held that the defendant applicant had served a notice upon the plaintiff-landlord pointing out the defects in the ceiling of the shop which required immediate repair. The landlord was requested to carry out the repairs failing which the defendant asserted his right to deduct one month's rent. The landlord failed to carry out any repairs. The defendant thereupon carried out the repairs and deducted a sum of Rs. 20/- which represented one month's rent. The finding of the court below clearly show that the defendant-applicant had been remitting rent to the plaintiff-landlord by money-order but he had been refusing the same.It is further admitted that before the first date of the hearing of the suit the defendant-applicant deposited the entire rent, except Rs. 20/-. The Additional District Judge held that the defendant-applicant was not entitled to deduct Rs. 20/-. The Additional District Judge held that the defendant-applicant was not entitled to deduct Rs. 20/- from the rent payable by the defendant-applicant to the plaintiff-landlord, and as he failed to pay the same after service of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, he was a defaulter. 4. Section 7-E of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, imposes a duty on the landlord to keep the accommodation in proper repair. The landlord is under an obligation to carry out repairs to keep the accommodation wind proof or water proof which he is otherwise bound to make by law, contract or custom. Sub-section (2) makes it clear that repairs would include annual white washing, re-colouring and periodical repairs. The Act however, does not define 'periodical repairs' but sub-section (3) lays down that if the landlord fails to carry out annual white-washing re-colouring and periodical repairs, the tenant may by notice require him to carry out the same within one month from the date of the notice. If the landlord fails to do so the tenant may himself carry out the repairs at a cost not exceeding one month's rent for the accommodation and deduct the amount from the rent. The tenant is, therefore, permitted to carry out periodical repairs after notice to the landlord but the tenant is permitted to spend only an amount not exceeding one month's rent. He is further permitted to adjust that amount against his liability to pay rent to the landlord. Sub-section (3) does not require intervention of any court or authority. Sub-section (4) however lays down that if the landlord neglects to carry out any repairs other than annual repairs which he is bound to make to the accommodation by law or contract, the tenant may apply to the Munsiff for a direction to the landlord for carrying out the same. When an application is made the Munsiff may direct the landlord to carry out the repairs but if the landlord still fails to carry out the repairs the Munsiff may direct the tenant to submit an estimate of the costs of the repairs and after considering the same he may permit the tenant to carry out the repairs at a cost specified in the order and the tenant may recover the same from the landlord. 5. 5. Under sub-section (3) while the tenant is entitled to carry out annual while-washing and periodical repairs, under sub-section (4) an application is maintainable not for any of these repairs but for other kind of repairs exceeding one month's rent, under sub-section (3). The legislative intent is clear that the tenant may carry out periodicals and annual repairs which may be of special nature. Under sub-section (3) the tenant cannot claim any amount exceeding one month's rent, but in proceedings initiated under sub-section (4), the Munsiff has power to sanction cost for repairs without the consent of the landlord but the cost of such repair should not exceed one month's rent, while under sub-section (4) the nature of repairs sought to be carried out do not fall within the ambit of annual repairs, but proceedings before the Munsiff should be taken for obtaining an order. The test for determining whether no repairs could be carried out without the application under sub-section (4) has to depend upon the nature of repairs had been done as a result of which dust from the ceiling had been falling in the shop which was spoiling his goods and wooden beams were damaged which needed repair. The plaintiff opposite party nowhere asserted that he had agreed to carry out periodical repairs and that the repairs sought to be carried out by the tenant fell outside the ambit of annual repairs. The learned Additional District Judge acted with material irregularity in holding that the tenant was not entitled to deduct the amount of Rs. 20/- from the rent as he had not obtained permission from the Munsiff in proceedings initiated under sub-section (4) of Section 7-E. The learned Judge failed to appreciate the distinction between sub-section (3) and sub-section (4). 6. The trial court rightly upheld the tenant's claim for deducting Rs. 20/- as one month's rent for carrying out the repairs as contemplated by Section 7-E(3) of the 1947 Act. Since the tenant was entitled to deduct Rs. 20/- as one month's rent for carrying out the repairs, the Additional District Judge committed patent error in holding the defendant-applicant to be defaulter. 7. In the result the revision is allowed with costs and the judgments and decree of the Addl. District Judge is set aside and the trial Court's decree is restored.