( 1 ) THE Land-lords have in this revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenged the order made on 17. 3. 1982 by the addl. District Judge, Bijapur dismissing h. R. C. (RP) No. 20/1980 and affirming the order made on 12. 3. 1980 by the Principal Munsiff, Bijapur in H. R. C. No. 69/1976. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT is a tenant of a tin roofed 'padashala' with a kitchen measuring 22' x 22' on the western portion of CTS No. 124/a in ward No. 6. He was paying a rent of Rs. 5/- per month and has been paying a rent of Rs. 8/- per month since 1962. The first petitioner is the land-lady and petitioners 2-4 also claim interest in this property under a Gift Deed said to have been executed in their favour by their mother first petitioner. ( 3 ) THE respondent filed H. R. C. No. 69/76 before the Munsiff, Bijapur under Section 44 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). His case is as follows: The varandha had a tin roof, but at the instance of the landlady, he remodelled the roofing spending about Rs. 1500/ -. The first respondent did not pay him this amount, but pursuant to an agreement between them, she permitted him to reside in the premises permanently paying a rent of Rs. 8/- per month subject to the landlady paying taxes and attending to the repairs. According to him the landlady refused to receive the rent of Rs. 8/- in the month of April 1974, and as she refused to receive rents even after a notice was got issued, he has been depositing rents in court. The other petitioners also started troubling him and have also filed criminal cases against him. The petitioners applied to the Municipality for permission to demolish and re-construct the building but the Municipality permitted them to effect only repairs within four days without evicting the tenants. The petitioners taking advantage of the permission given by the municipality to effect "only repairs" pulled down the roof of the Kitchen on 8. 1. 1976, but have got carried out the repairs. The petitioners taking advantage of the permission given by the municipality to effect "only repairs" pulled down the roof of the Kitchen on 8. 1. 1976, but have got carried out the repairs. The respondent got issued a notice to the petitioners calling upon them to effect the repairs and on their failing to do so, filed the application under Section 44 of the Act for a direction to the petitioners to effect the repairs to the premises or to permit him to effect the repairs at the cost of the petitioners. ( 4 ) THE petitioners filed their objections and opposed the prayer. Except admitting the rent payable, they denied all the other averments. Their case is that the kitchen was badly in need of repairs, they therefore, applied to the Municipality for permission to effect the repairs and to construct the entire premises and then they pulled down the roof as it was in a very dangerous condition. They maintained that they did not approach the Municipality for permission to demolish the leased premises to evict the respondent. The applied to the municipality for permission to reconstruct the building as they want it for their bonafide use, and in fact have applied for recovering possession in h. R. C. 87/76 and the same is pending. It is their further case that the repair of the roof has been hampered by the respondent himself as he has not vacated the premises resulting in harassment and great hardship to them. ( 5 ) THE court of first instance considering the evidence on record and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, made an order on 12. 3. 80 allowing the application and directed the petitioners "to execute the necessary repairs to the suit premises within two months" from the date of the order and further directed that "if they fail to comply with the direction, the applicant is permitted to cause the necessary repairs at the cost of the opponents". The petitioner challenged this order in H. R. C. (R. P) 20/1980 before the District Judge, bijapur. The District Judge, by his order made on 27. 3. 1982 dismissed the revision and directed the land lords should make necessary repairs of the roof within one month from the date of this order, failing which the tenant shall effect the repairs of the roof which should not exceed Rs. The District Judge, by his order made on 27. 3. 1982 dismissed the revision and directed the land lords should make necessary repairs of the roof within one month from the date of this order, failing which the tenant shall effect the repairs of the roof which should not exceed Rs. 250/- and the said amount should be adjusted in the rents payable by him to the landlords". The landlords have filed this revision. ( 6 ) SRI Savanur, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the admitted facts section 44 of the Act has no application and the court has no competence or jurisdiction to pass the order. Elaborating this submission he argued that the tenant wants the entire roofing to be put afresh or reconstructed, and his client is not required to effect any "repairs" and therefore, Section 44 is not attracted. He further argued that the cost of any repair to be effected cannot exceed Rs. 8/- being 1/12 of the rent payable for the year, and the direction permitting the tenant to effect the repairs at a cost not exceeding Rs. 250/- is also without competence. ( 7 ) TO appreciate the submissions made, I may with advantage refer to section 44 of the act which reads:"section 44: Repairs and improvements: (1) Every landlord shall be bound to keep the building in reasonably good repair. (2) If the landlord neglects to make, within a reasonable time after a notice by a tenant is served upon him by registered post, any repairs which he is bound to make under Sub-section (1) the tenant, may make the repairs, himself, and deduct the cost of such repairs from the rent or otherwise recover it from the landlord, provided that -where the tenant makes the repair himself, the amount so deducted or recoverable in any year shall not exceed one twelfth of the rent payable by the tenant for that year. (3) Where the cost of such repairs exceeds one twelfth of the rent payable by the tenant for that year or where the building is directed to be leased under Section 5 or section 6, the Court may, by order, direct the landlord to execute such repairs which he is bound to make under sub-section (2) and as may be specified in the notice within such reasonable time or may be mentioned therein; and if the landlord fails to execute repairs in pursuance of such order the court may permit the tenant to cause the repairs specified in the order, to be executed at the expense of the landlord and the cost thereof may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be deducted from the rent payable to the landlord. " ( 8 ) THIS Section provides for the repairs and improvements of the building leased by the landlord. The mandate of Sub-section 1 is that the landlord shall be bound to keep the building in a reasonably good repair. If the landlord fails in his duty to keep the building in reasonably good repair under Sub-Section (2) the tenant may serve a notice on the landlord calling upon him to attend to such repairs and if the landlord neglects to make the repairs within a reasonable time after service of notice, the tenant has the right to make the repairs, himself but the cost of such repairs he is entitled to deduct from the rent payable to or to recover from, the landlord in any year cannot exceed one twelfth of the rent payable for that year. ( 9 ) IT is only in the case where the cost of such repairs exceeds the one twelfth of the rent payable for that year, or when the building is directed to be leased under Section 5 or Section 6, the court has to make an order under sub-section (3) directing the landlord to execute the repairs he is bound to make under sub-section (1) and as may be specified in the notice within a reasonably time specified and on his failure to execute such repairs within the time specified, the court may permit the tenant to get the repairs specified in the order, executed at the cost of the Landlord and deduct the same from the rents payable without prejudice to any other way of recovering the same. ( 10 ) THERE is no limit as to the cost of repairs to be effected if they are done pursuant to the order of the court under Sub-Section (3 ). The courts get on jurisdiction or competence to make an order under sub-section (3) only when the cost of repairs is more than one twelfth of the rent or in cases where the lease is persuant to a direction under section 5 or Section 6. The tenant who gets the repairs done on the tailure of the landlord failing to effect the repairs persuant to an order of the Court under Sub-Section (3) has a right to deduct the cost of such repairs from the rents payable to the Landlord without prejudice to his right to recover the same in any other mode. The proviso to sub- section (2) has no application to sub-section (3) and the tenants right to deduct the entire cost of repairs from the rents or recover the same are in no way limited. He has a right to recover the entire cost of repairs from the landlord. ( 11 ) THE tenant in this case made an application to the court, for an order to direct the land lord to effect repairs and to permit him to effect the same if he fails to carry out repairs. The provisions of sub-section (2) are therefore not attracted. It is only provisions of sub-section (3) that are attracted to the facts of this case. The court has therefore, the power or competence to direct repairs, cost of which is more than one twelfth the rent for that year and the tenant has also the right to recover the same from the land lord either by deducting the same from the rents payable or by any other mode. ( 12 ) THE word 'repair' in section 4 it was submitted by Sri Savanur, does not take within its ambit reconstruction of the building by putting a new roof to the kitchen as there is no roof in existence now and reliance was placed on a decision of this court in LEELA VENUGOPAL vs. RAJASHEKARA SETTY 1976 (1) Kar. L. J. 287. ( 13 ) THE words 'repairs' and 'improvements' are not defined in the Act. L. J. 287. ( 13 ) THE words 'repairs' and 'improvements' are not defined in the Act. In my view the legislature has advisedly not defined these words because what a repair is or what an improvement is may very from case to case depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the circumstances necessitating the repairs or improvements. ( 14 ) THE word-'repair' is defined: (i) In Murray's New English Dictionary as: The act of restoring to a sound or unimpaired condition; the process by which this is accomplished; the result attained. Relative state or condition of something admitting or susceptible of restoration in event of actual or possible damage or decay chiefly of building or other composite structures and in phrase, in good or bad repair", (ii) In Ballantine's Law Dictionary (1954): the word "repair" contemplates an existing structure or thing which has become imperfect by reason of the action of the elements, or otherwise. Work done on a structure which has not been demolished, but which has been damaged. The word is to be distinguished from reconstruction which properly applies only to work done upon a structure which had been demolished in whole or in part", (iii) In strouds Judicial Dictionary (third edi- tion (: To repair means to make good defects, including renewal where that is necessary, i. e. patching where patching is reasonably practicable and, where it is not, you must put in a new piece. . . . But, "repair" does not connote a total reconstruction. ( 15 ) THE repairs and improvements are those that are or that become necessary to keep the building leased in a habitable and reasonably good condition so that the tenant can continue to use the building with the same advantages, contorts and facilities during his occupation. They may be minor repairs and improvements that are required to be attended annually. Some times the roof may develop leakage. , the wall or the foundation may develop craks. The sanitary drainage pipes or water supply pipes or Electrical wiring etc. , having become very old may have to be replaced. In such an eventuality, the roofing the walls and the foundation may have to be repaired or if it becomes necessary replaced. The water supply and drainage pipes and the electrical wiring etc. The sanitary drainage pipes or water supply pipes or Electrical wiring etc. , having become very old may have to be replaced. In such an eventuality, the roofing the walls and the foundation may have to be repaired or if it becomes necessary replaced. The water supply and drainage pipes and the electrical wiring etc. might have become useless and it may become necessary to replace them with new ones. Unless these things are attended to, the tenant will be exposed to grave risks and he will be denied the minimum amenities he was enjoying all along. This is achieved by Section 44 of the act. ( 16 ) WHAT emerges from the above is the word 'repair' does not take within its ambit, total reconstruction after demolition of the existing building. The word 'repair' does take within its ambit any restoration of the worn or decayed or damaged part or portion of the building to a sound, unimparied or good condition. The building leased in other words may become imperfect by reason of the action of the elements, or other wise including any action of the landlord and the defects have to be repaired, and the building restored to a good condition and for the purpose repair includes patching, where patching is reasonably practicable and where it is not reasonably practicable, putting a new piece. ( 17 ) IN this case, the roofing had decayed and had to be repaired. The Municipality permitted the Land Lords to repair the premises and not to demolish and reconstruct it. The land lords removed the entire roof obviously because it had decayed to such an extent that it was not reasonably practicable to patch up here and there and restore it to a good condition. The landlords are bound to restore the premises leased to a sound and unimpaired condition and this can only be done if they replace the roof they have removed, by putting a new roof and this process certainly comes within the meaning of the word 'repair' in section 44 of the Act. ( 18 ) IN Leelavenugopal's case, the question that came up for consideration was whether the land Lord could be required to replace a water meter if it was stolen. It is therefore of no assistance to the petitioner. ( 18 ) IN Leelavenugopal's case, the question that came up for consideration was whether the land Lord could be required to replace a water meter if it was stolen. It is therefore of no assistance to the petitioner. ( 19 ) THE contentions urged are therefore devoid of merit and are rejected, ( 20 ) IN the result, and for the reasons aforesaid the revision petition fails and is rejected. --- *** --- .