JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner filed title suit no. 299 of 1978 for ejectment on the 'ground of reasonable requirement and other questions were al3o raised. Thereafter the opposite party tiled an application under section 35 of the West bengal Premises Tenancy Act before the rent Controller, Calcutta, asking for an order for permitting him to effect remains of the disputed premises. He described himself as the sole tenant. The application was rejected. An appeal was taken out and it was allowed. The learned Additional district Judge directed the tenant to carry out the essential repairs according to the estimates submitted by the inspector. He ordered that a statement of the costs be submitted to the Rent Controller within three months from the date of his order and thereafter, the Rent Controller would make further enquiry, if any, determining the amount of costs. The further order is that the costs determined would be deducted from the rent paid by the tenant subject to the limits laid down by the provisions of section 34 of the Act. Hence this revisional application. 2. TWO-FOLD submissions have been made on behalf of the landlord petitioner. It has been stated that there is no finding as to who is responsible for the alleged damage, though his clear case is that it is the tenant who is responsible for such damages. Secondly, the ejectment suit, viz., title suit no, 2. 99 of 1978, is pending. In that suit, necessary relief in this respect was asked for. In order to substantiate this contention reference has been made to the decision of Loken Bose vs Asima reported in 81 CWN 948 and Nirendra vs. Lal mohan reported in 1977 (2) CLJ 941. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has contended that though the ejectment suit has, been filed, it will take at' least 10 years for its disposal. So, it will be absolutely necessary to pursue the present remedy. Exclusive provisions have been made under sections 34 and 35 of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act regarding essential repairs asked for by the tenant and such relief cannot be denied merely because an ejectment suit is pending at the instance Of the landlord opposite party. 3. So, it will be absolutely necessary to pursue the present remedy. Exclusive provisions have been made under sections 34 and 35 of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act regarding essential repairs asked for by the tenant and such relief cannot be denied merely because an ejectment suit is pending at the instance Of the landlord opposite party. 3. IN the well-known case of Loken bose vs. Asima (supra), it has been stated that section 34 of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act does not bar grant of relief under the provision of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the defendant where the landlord has filed a suit for ejectment. It has also been stated that it is not the intention of the legislature to drive a tenant to a separate proceeding under section 34 to avail of the relief provided for therein. If in spite of the fact that a suit. for eviction is pending, the tenant files an application under section 34 of the Act, that will mean multiplicity of proceedings. A temporary injunction in this respect can be asked for and in a suit for eviction the power of the court to grant temporary mandatory injunction for restoration of essential repairs has not been fettered or restricted by the provisions of section 34 of the Act. Hence, with a view to preventing multiplicity of proceedings, it must be held that the application filed by the plaintiff shall stand rejected. He will be at liberty to ask for such relief before the trial court. 4. OF course, there is an infirmity in the judgment as there is no finding as to who is responsible for the alleged damages. But this- is unnecessary since this matter will be dealt with by the civil court. The Rule is made absolute and the impugned order set aside without any order as to costs.