JUDGMENT B. N. Sapru, J. 1. KALIASH Nath Verma has filed Writ Petition No. 9816 of 1981 is the owner and landlord of House No. 10/4, Khalasi Lines, Kanpur. 2. ACCORDING to Kailash Nath Verma, one Ganesh Prasad Gupta was a tenant of a portion of the house and the accommodation in his possession consisted of one Kothari and a Chhajja in the first floor and a Barsati on the second floor of the aforesaid house. It is the case of the petitioner that Ganga Prasad Gupta vacated the accommodation and the same was allotted to one Chandra Prakash Dixit by an order of allotment No. 206 dated 8-4-1975. Shyam Lal Gupta, the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition (who is also a petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7511 of 1980), was, according to the petitioner, in illegal possession of the building and consequently in proceedings under Section 16 (5) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') he was evicted. Shyam Lal Gupta filed an application under Section 16 (5) of the Act for review of the order of allotment dated 21-5-1976 which was allowed and he was held to be a lawful tenant of the accommodation in dispute. 3. AN appeal against the said order was dismissed and a writ petition challenging the appellate order was also dismissed on 18-9-1978. 4. ON 27-9-1978, Shyam Lal Gupta filed an application under Section 16 (4) read with Section 18 (3) of the Act before the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies), Kanpur, requesting that he be delivered possession over the building in dispute. The petitioner (Kailash Nath Verma) contested the aforesaid application on the ground that the roof of the building had fallen down and as the accommodation had ceased to be a building, there was no question of delivering back possession to Shyam Lai Gupta. 5. AFTER getting a report from the Rent Control Inspector who reported that the roof of the first floor and Barsati of the second floor had fallen down, the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies), Kanpur, rejected the application by order dated 11-6-1979. 6. SHYAM Lal Gupta filed a revision against the order which was numbered as Rent Revision no. 198 of 1979. 6. SHYAM Lal Gupta filed a revision against the order which was numbered as Rent Revision no. 198 of 1979. The Additional District Judge noticed that it was admitted that the structure was roofless and the question that he considered was whether in the circumstances of the case the restitution of over the roofless building should or should not be allowed. It was held that Shyam Lal Gupta had been evicted on the ground that Shyam Lal Gupta had been a tenant in the accommodation and had been wrongfully evicted on the ground that the accommodation was vacant. It was noticed that the tenancy of Shyam Lal Gupta had been found factually proved right upto the High Court and in the circumstances, the restitution should be ordered. He accordingly allowed the revision and directed that possession of the accommodation in dispute be delivered to Shyam Lal Gupta. 7. AGGRIEVED by that order, Kailash Nath Verma has filed Writ Petition No. 9816 of 1981. 8. SHYAM Lal Gupta has filed Writ Petition No. 7511 of 1980 against an order of the Munsif City/Prescribed Authority, Kanpur, dated 24-5-1980. Shyam Lal Gupta after getting an order in his favour directing the return of possession, applied to the Prescribed Authority for a direction to Kailash Nath Verma that Kailash Nath Verma be directed to repair the house but despite the order dated 1-9-1979 directing him to repair the building, he did not do so. Consequently, a prayer was made by an application under Section 34 and Rule 22 (f) of the Rules framed under the Act that Shyam Lal Gupta be given police aid to repair the building himself as the landlord had failed to comply with the order dated 1-9-1979. 9. THIS application was rejected on the ground that since the building was admittedly roofless, it did not come within the definition of 'building' under the Act and consequently no direction could be issued in favour of Shyam Lal Gupta. 10. AGGRIEVED against this order, Shyam Lal Gupta has filed Writ Petition No. 7511 of 1980. The factual position is that Kailash Nath Verma is the owner of the building and it has been finally determined that Shyam Lal Gupta was a lawful tenant. 10. AGGRIEVED against this order, Shyam Lal Gupta has filed Writ Petition No. 7511 of 1980. The factual position is that Kailash Nath Verma is the owner of the building and it has been finally determined that Shyam Lal Gupta was a lawful tenant. It has also been found that Shyam Lal Gupta was wrongfully evicted from the building treating it as vacant and the building was allotted to Chandra Prakash Dixit who has admittedly vacated it. The order of allotment in favour of Chandra Prakash Dixit had been cancelled and it has further been ordered that Shyam Lal Gupta be restored back into possession over the building in question. 11. DURING the period when Shyam Lal Gupta was out of possession the roof of the building has been found to have been removed or to have fallen down. 12. IN a Civil Suit filed by the petitioner, Kaliash Nath Verma, against Shyam Lal Gupta for a declaration and injunction, it was held that Kailash Nath Verma had got the roof of the building demolished. The appeal of Kailash Nath Verma was dismissed. It may be added here that Shyam Lal Gupta's application to the District Magistrate for permission to prosecute Kailash Nath Verma for demolishing the roof of the building in his tenancy, was dismissed by the District Magistrate. 13. IN the case of Girish Dutt Chandola v. District Magistrate, Meerut, 1977 ARC 391 = 1977 AWC (Journal) 51 (2) it has been held that where a person has been evicted in pursuance of an allotment order which is subsequently set aside, the person who has been evicted, can be restored in possession if it is found that the order of allotment is without jurisdiction. 14. THE case which has been relied upon by the learned District Judge is the case of Seo Kishan Das v. Prescribed Authority, 1980 ARC 369 = 1980 AWC 304. In that case what had happened was that the landlord instituted a proceeding u/Sec. 21 of the Act claiming that he needed the accommodation in possession of a tenant for his personal need. THE application was dismissed in default. Subsequently on an application moved by the landlord, the order dismissing the application in default was set aside and without notice to the tenant the application was allowed. THE application was dismissed in default. Subsequently on an application moved by the landlord, the order dismissing the application in default was set aside and without notice to the tenant the application was allowed. After the application was allowed, the landlord dispossessed the tenant in pursuance of an order and after getting possession demolished the roof. THE tenant moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 31-4-1975. This application was opposed by the landlord on the ground that the accommodation had ceased to be a building. THE Prescribed Authority by his order dated 4-8-1975 overruled the objection of the landlord and allowed the application. A writ petition against that order was dismissed on 14-8-1975. THEreafter the tenant moved an application under Sections 144/151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restitution. This application was opposed by the landlord claiming that since there was no building as defined in the Act, the authorities had no jurisdiction to order restitution in the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. This time the Prescribed Authority accepted the objection and rejected the restitution application. Against the order of the Prescribed Authority rejecting the application dated 6-10-1973 writ petition was allowed. This Court held that when the application under section 21 of the Act was filed by the landlord, the shop in question was a building. It was further held that once the proceedings under the provision of law is commenced, it could only be terminated by a final order passed by the Prescribed Authority. When the ex parte order in favour of the landlord was set aside, the proceeding under section 21 of the Act revived. It was held that the landlord's unilateral act could not divest the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority. In these circumstances, it was held that the restitution could be ordered in favour of the tenant. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and the order of the Prescribed Authority was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 15. SRI K. M. Dayal appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Kailash Nath Verma, has sought to distinguish the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench on the ground that the case arose out of a proceeding under section 21 of the Act whereas the present case arose out of a proceeding under section 16 of the Act. 16. 15. SRI K. M. Dayal appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Kailash Nath Verma, has sought to distinguish the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench on the ground that the case arose out of a proceeding under section 21 of the Act whereas the present case arose out of a proceeding under section 16 of the Act. 16. THAT distinction is undoubtedly there but the principle of law is clear that where in a proceeding arising under the Act, a party obtains an order from an authority and obtains possession of a building, he cannot by his unilateral act of removing the roof, divest the authority of its jurisdiction to set aside a wrong if the order has been obtained improperly. In these circumstances, it must be held that the learned District Judge rightly held that Shyam Lal Gupta was entitled to be restored back to the possession of the building from which he has been illegally evicted. 17. WRIT Petition No. 9816 has accordingly to be dismissed. 18. COMING now to the writ petition no. 7511 of 1980, filed by Shyam Lal Gupta against the order dated 24-5-1980, the Munsif City directed Kailash Nath Verma to carry out various repairs and to put the roof on the accommodation in question within one month. It was further ordered that in case of failure to carry out the orders, the roof will be repaired at the cost permitted under the law within one month. Admittedly, Kailash Nath Verma did not carry out the repairs. 19. THEREAFTER Shyam Lal Gupta filed an application dated 12-11-1979 before the Munsif City/Prescribed Authority, Kanpur, that as Kailash Nath Verma did not comply with the order dated 1-5-1979, the Station Officer, P. S. Gwaltoli, Kanpur, be directed to assist the petitioner, Shyam Lal Gupta to carry out the necessary repairs in the accommodation and to enforce the order of the Court dated 1-9-1979. 20. THIS application has been rejected by an order dated 24-5-1980. The basic reason given by the Prescribed Authority is that as there is no roof over the building, it ceased to be a 'building' and the Court had no jurisdiction to order the landlord to reconstruct the building. It can only direct that repairs be carried out. As it found that what was required to be done did not amount not to repairs but reconstruction, it, as mentioned above, rejected the application. It can only direct that repairs be carried out. As it found that what was required to be done did not amount not to repairs but reconstruction, it, as mentioned above, rejected the application. Section 26 of the Act deals with the obligations of the landlord and tenant. Under sub-section (2) thereof, the landlord is bound to keep the building under tenancy wind-proof and water-proof and, subject to any contract in writing to the contrary, carry out periodical white-washing and repairs. 21. SECTION 28 deals with the enforcement of landlord's obligation regarding repairs, etc. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) thereof deal with whitewashing and what is generally known as annual repairs. Sub-sections (4) and (5) thereof deal with the situations where a building requires major repairs, i. e. in that cases where white-washing or repairs required cost more than two months' rent. Under sub-section (5) when an application is made by a tenant asking for an order regarding major repairs, the Prescribed Authority may require the landlord to carry out the major repairs and on his failure to do so, may permit the tenant to carry out those repairs. The financial limit for such repairs is that cost should not exceed the amount of two months' rent. 22. SECTIONS 26 and 28 of the Act contemplate that the tenant is in possession of a building which required repairs. These sections do not contemplate cases where a tenant is out of possession. Shyam Lal Gupta was evicted in pursuance of an order of allotment in favour of Chandra Prakash Dixit. That order was subsequently set aside. Under section 18 (3) of the Act, the District Magistrate is required, on an application being made to him in this behalf, to place the parties back in possession which they would have occupied but for the order which had been set aside, and for that purpose may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. 23. AS in the instant case, the landlord has been found to have removed the roof and damaged the property, the tenant is entitled to be restored back to the tenancy of the building in the same condition as it was before the roof of the building was removed. The Court will direct such repairs as are necessary to restore the building back to its original condition or as near to it as possible. The Court will direct such repairs as are necessary to restore the building back to its original condition or as near to it as possible. This work will not amount to repairs, either annual or major, as contemplated by sections 26 and 28 of the Act. 24. IT is necessary to add here that, according to Kailash Nath Verma, because of certain regulations and orders under the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, the roof cannot be relaid. IT is unnecessary at this stage to enter into this question and to decide that the assertion made by Kailash Nath Verma is correct or not. The matter can be decided by the appropriate authority when and if Shyam Lal Gupta applies for restoring the roof of the building to its original condition. In this view of the matter, Shyam Lal Gupta can get no relief in the writ petition before he obtains possession. 25. IN the result, writ petition no. 9816 of 1981 is dismissed with costs. Writ Petition no. 7511 of 1980 is also dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.