JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - A landlord from District Nainital one Mohd. Nabi has petitioner this Court against the order of the Munsif Rudrapur, dated 9th February, 1987, passed under Section 26 and Section 28 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, that he is aggrieved on being directed to carry out repairs in the accommodation, a shop. It is not in issue between the landlord and his tenant that the roof of this accommodation has sprung a leak. The Munsif, Rudrapur, acting as the Prescribed Authority permitted the tenant to carry out the repairs, should the landlord decline. 2. The argument advanced to sustain the present petition is that the petitioner landlord has filed a suit in pursuance of Section 20 of the Act aforesaid, for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that he has damaged the accommodation and carried out material alterations in it. This suit of the petitioner-landlord, unfortunately, has been rejected and it is stated at the Bar that the decision has been assailed before the District Judge. In that jurisdiction, should the landlord succeed, he will have an advantage of evicting the tenant and having the accommodation released in his favour. 3. From this accommodation, it is a matter of record and not in issue, that the landlord derives an annual rent of Rs. 4040. The landlord submits that the tenant himself is to blame for the leaking roof consequent upon having carried out material alterations. The tenant says that there have not been any repairs so as to put the building into such a condition that it will not leak. The learned Munsif has mentioned in the order which has been impugned, that the landlord will carry out ordinary repairs so that the roof will not leak. The landlord given a chance, would rather not. 4. To keep a tenement wind proof in a states which ensures that the roof will not leak is the routine obligation of the landlord and there is no escape from this. In case the tenant has indeed damaged the building or carried out major alterations he may suffer, should the landlord be successful in the allegation which he may sustain under Section 20. In case the tenant has indeed damaged the building or carried out major alterations he may suffer, should the landlord be successful in the allegation which he may sustain under Section 20. There is no error in the impugned order and if the petitioner landlord does not carry out repairs then the respondent tenant will have the option to carry out these repairs the cost of which will not exceed two months rent in a years ; but this is contingent upon the fact that actual repairs have been carried out year by years. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed before this Court a decision which is reported in 1982 ARC 452. In this case a wall which was otherwise an earthern wall had collapsed. The allegation was that the landlord had been responsible for this and more than one wall had come crumbling down along with the titled roof. The facts as they were in that case which has been cited, this Court came to the conclusion that it did not absolve the landlord from the obligation which would be sought by law under sub-clause 2 of Section 28 of the Act aforesaid. This case does not aid the petitioner, as the cost of the requisite white washing or repairs, should it not exceed two month's rent in a year, can in any case be undertaken by the tenant by giving the landlord prior intimation, so contemplated in Section 28 of the Act. In the instant case the question is of keeping the building wind proof and water proof. This is the obligation of the landlord as required by law under sub-section 2 of Section 26 of the Act. 6. In these circumstances this is not a case which needs interference by this Court under its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.