JUDGMENT R. R. K. Trivedi, J. 1. In this writ petition counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. Both the learned counsel have agreed that the writ petition may be decided finally at this stage. 2. The facts necessary to follow the controversy, which is subject matter of this writ petition, are that the petitioner who is a tenant of a shop, made an application under section 28 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, here-in-after referred to as 'Act', before Prescribed Authority for an order requiring the respondent no. 2 landlord to carry out certain repairs in the accommodation in dispute. A copy of the application has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, perusal of which shows that the petitioner claimed repairs of the two doors and the roof. In paragraph no, 10 of this application the petitioner has specifically stated that in carrying out the aforesaid repairs the amount required may be mors than two years rent and in that case he is prepared to enhance the rent of the shop in dispute. It has been further stated that the notice was served on respondent no. 2 on 18th January. 1989 which was replied by respondent no 2 on 23rd January 1989 and he refused to accept the request of petitioner regarding repairs. Hence the application was filed. The aforesaid application of petitioner was contested by respondent no. 2 interalia on the ground that as tenancy of the petitioner has been terminated, he is not entitled for the relief claimed by him. Further in paragraph no. 18 it was stated that though the shop in dispute is an old construction but it is in good condition and it does not require any repairs as alleged. It was also stated that the petitioner has made several alterations without his permission. Prescribed Authority after hearing parties by his order dated 22nd November, 1996 rejected application of petitioner on the ground that as repairs claimed by him shall require an investment of amount exceeding two years rent, the relief claimed in the application cannot be granted. Aggrieved by aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority, tenant has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material on record. Aggrieved by aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority, tenant has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner after referring to the provisions contained in section 28 of the Act submitted that the prescribed authority has failed to apply the provisions correctly and has rejected application under misconception of law. It is submitted that it is landlord's obligation to keep the building under tenancy wind proof and water proof. This obligation is unconditional and the limit of two years rent referred to in section 28 (5) (b) of the Act cannot be applied in discharging the aforesaid obligation. It has been further submitted that as property belonged to landlord no limit has been fixed while requiring him to carry out major repairs. The alleged limit can only be applied while permitting tenants to carry out the requisite repairs. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, placed reliance on cases of Mohemmad Rati v. Prescribed Authority/Munsif City, Saharanpur, 1988 (1) ARC 29 and Abdul Latif v. Mohammad Shah, 1987 ALJ 273 and has submitted that if the likely investment in the proposed repairs exceeded two years rent, the application was not maintainable end has rightly been rejected and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority does not suffer from any error of law. 4. After considering rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, serious question involved in this writ petition is as to what extent the landlord can be compelled to incur monetary liability while discharging his obligation under sub section (2) of section 26 of the Act which is being quoted below. "The landlord shall be bound to keep the building under tenancy wind proof and water proof and, subject to any J contract in writing to the contrary, carry out periodical white washing and repairs," On perusal of the aforesaid provision it is clear that there is an unqualified obligation on the part of the landlord to keep the building wind proof and waterproof daring the subsistence of the tenancy. Further subject to any contract between landlord and tenant in writing to the contrary the landlord is also liable to carry out periodical white washing and repairs. Further subject to any contract between landlord and tenant in writing to the contrary the landlord is also liable to carry out periodical white washing and repairs. These obligations of the landlord can be enforced under section 28 of the Act which is being reproduced below : "28. Enforcement of landlord's obligation regarding repairs etc (1) If the landlord fails to carry out whitewashing or repairs as required by subsection (2) of section 26, the tenant may, by notice in writing, call upon him to carry out the same within one month from the date of service of such notice. (2) Where the cost of the requisite whitewashing or repairs is likely to exceed the amount of (two months rent) in a year, then the tenant in his notice shall also intimate to the landlord his willingness to pay enhanced rent in accordance with the provisions of section 6 (3) If the landlord falls to comply with the notice the tenant may himself carry out the whitewashing or repairs at a cost not exceeding (two months' rent) in a year and deduct the amount from the rent, and in any such case he shall furnish the account of the expenditure incurred to the landlord. (4) Where the tenant claims that the building requires whitewashing or repairs to such extent that the cost thereof is likely to exceed the amount of (two months's rent) In a year, hereinafter in this section referred to as 'major repairs', and the landlord either declines his responsibility to carry out the same or fails to comply with the notice, the tenant may apply to the prescribed authority for an order under sub-section 5. (5) The Prescribed Authority en receiving an application under sub section (4) may, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties : (a) either reject the application; or (b) require the landlord to carry out the requisite major repairs within such period as may be specified in the order, and on his failure to do so, permit the tenant to carry out those repairs at a cost not exceeding such amount (which shall tot be more than the amount of two years' rent) and within such period as may be specified In the order. (6) Where in pursuance of an order under sub-section (5) any major repairs are carried out by the tenant, he shall furnish an account of the expenditure to the prescribed authority, which shall certify the amount recoverable by the tenant, and thereupon such amount, unless paid or otherwise adjusted by the landlord, may be deducted by the tenant from the rent in monthly instalments not exceeding twenty-five per cent of one months' rent and in assy such case, the enhancement of rent under section 6 shall come into effect only from the month following the month In which the cost is fully recovered by the tenant (7) No appeal or revision shall lie from any order of the prescribed authority under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) which shall be final." As clear from the perusal of section 23, sub sections (1) (2) and (3) thereof deal with whitewashing and other repairs. However in case tenant claims that the building requires repairs to such extent that the cost thereof may exceed the amount of two months" rent same has been termed as major repairs and if the landlord declines his responsibility to carry out the same on being called upon to make the required repairs, an application may be moved to the prescribed authority for an order under sub-section (5). A perusal of section 28 (5) (b) of the Act shows that the prescribed authority after he ring the parties may require the landlord to carry cut the requisite major repairs within such period as may be specified in the order, and on his failure to do so, permit the tenant to carry out those repairs at a cost not exceeding such amount and within such period as may be specified in the order. The amount has been fixed in the same clause which shall not be more than two years rent. Sub section (6) of section 28 requires tenant to furnish an account of the expenditure to the prescribed authority, who shall certify the amount recoverable by the tenant, and which if not paid or otherwise adjusted by landlord, may be deducted by the tenant from the rent in monthly instalment, which shall not exceed twenty five per cent of the monthly rent. It further contemplates that the enhancement of rent as contemplated under section 6 of the Act shall came into effect from the month following the month In which the cost incurred by tenant is fully recovered. 5. At this place it shall also be useful to refer section 3 (n) of the Act in which word 'improvement' in relation to a building has been defined, as any addition to it or alteration thereof and also includes all repairs made in any year the cost whereof exceeds the amount of two months' rent thereof. Section 6 of the Act contemplates the effect of improvements on rent and in case the landlords has carried out any improvement is a building under tenancy after the commencement of this Act either with the consent of the tenant or in pursuance of any requirement of law he shall be entitled to enhancement of rent not exceeding one percent of the actual cost of such Improvement. 6. From combined reading of section 3 (n), section 6, section 26 (2) and section 28 sub sections (4) (3) and (6) of the Act it becomes clear that the legislature had in contemplation the various situations regarding the condition of the building, during the subsistence of the tenancy and thus under chapter V made provisions regulating the rights and obligations of landlord and tenant Under sub section (2) of section 26 the legislature has created an unqualified obligation on the part of the landlord to keep the building wind proof and waterproof during the subsistence of tenancy. This obligation if not discharged by landlord can be enforced under sub sections (4) (5) and (6) of section 28 of the Act. A close scrutiny of the provisions reveals that though no monetary limit has been fixed so far as the landlord is concerned in discharging his obligation, the only requirement under clause (b) of sub-section (5) of. section 28 is that the requisite major repairs should be curried out within a period specified in the order. A close scrutiny of the provisions reveals that though no monetary limit has been fixed so far as the landlord is concerned in discharging his obligation, the only requirement under clause (b) of sub-section (5) of. section 28 is that the requisite major repairs should be curried out within a period specified in the order. However if the landlord fails to carry out the major repairs even after the order passed by prescribed authority, tenant may be permitted to carry out the repairs but the legislature thought it proper to protect the interest of the landlord in such circumstances by providing monetary limit for carrying out such repairs, which should also be carried out within a certain period specified in the order but the cost shown by the tenant in carrying out the major repairs may be recoverable from the landlord according to the modes contemplated therein It also contemplates about the enhancement of rent under section 6 of the Act. Act no, 13 of 1972 came into force on 15th July, 1972, more than 20 years have passed since then. During this period the prices of the material which is used in carrying out the repairs and the cost of the labour skilled and unskilled has gone up many fold, a judicial notice of which can be taken without any hesitation. It would have been very appropriate for the legislature to intervene in the changed circumstances .and to bring necessary changes so that the interest of the landlord and tenant could be safeguarded and the provisions contained in Chapter V of the Act may be enforced without any difficulty. However, unfortunately legislature has its own limitations in functioning and swift and prompt legislative intervention in such matters remains uncertain. The courts, however, cannot sit idle and refuse relief in genuine cases. In such facts and circumstances the provisions have to be so interpreted that they remain workable and may be enforced without violating any basic legislative intent. From sections 6, 26 and 28 of the Act the legislative intent appears to be that during subsistence of the tenancy the tenant should be permitted to enjoy the possession and tenancy rights in peaceful manner for which the building must be windproof and waterproof. From sections 6, 26 and 28 of the Act the legislative intent appears to be that during subsistence of the tenancy the tenant should be permitted to enjoy the possession and tenancy rights in peaceful manner for which the building must be windproof and waterproof. At the same time the deterioration of the building in due course of time cannot be prevented and in case the landlord is required to carry out the major repairs he has been given right to enhance the rent reasonably so as to compensate him for the costs incurred by him in keeping the building windproof and waterproof by carrying out the repairs. The legislature also made provisions for the period during which the repairs should be carried out and such period should be fixed by the prescribed authority in his order If the landlord agreed and obeys the order of the prescribed authority no further precaution is required, as it may be assumed that the landlord will act reasonably and as a prudent man while carrying out the repairs to his own property. As monetary Interest as well as the Interest of the building are common, the legislature has not put any monetary limit in case of landlord while requiring him to carry out repairs However, in case of failure on his part while permitting tenant to do the same, it was thought necessary to fix some monetary limit for carrying out the repairs, as the cost of such repairs is to be ultimately recovered from the landlord. The legislature thought two years rent payable by tenant as seasonable maximum limit for tenant to carry out such repairs on being permitted by prescribed authority. However the question is whether this limit provided more than 20 years before is reasonable and should be adhered to even now when admittedly the prices of the material and the cost of labour have gone up many fold- In my opinion, monetary limit fixed by law is wholly unworkable and it Is impossible to carry out even shall repairs. In the present case the rate of rent for shop in dispute is Rs. 6.25 P. p m. Two years rent would be Rs. 150/- From this amount, in my opinion repairs regarding roof and doors etc. In the present case the rate of rent for shop in dispute is Rs. 6.25 P. p m. Two years rent would be Rs. 150/- From this amount, in my opinion repairs regarding roof and doors etc. which have been claimed in the application cannot be carried out even though they may be necessary to keep the building windproof and waterproof which Is unqualified obligation under law of the landlord. In these circumstances the only course open to the prescribed authority is to assess the necessary repairs and to enforce the obligation of the landlord even though the cost incurred in discharging the same may exceed the monetary limit fixed by section 28 (5) (b) of the Act. Such major repairs may ultimately fall under category of 'improvement' as contemplated under section 3 (n) of the Act and the landlord would be entitled for enhancement of the rent. However the tenant would be entitled only to recover the amount equivalent to two years rent from the landlord. In the present case the tenant in paragraph no. 10 of his application has clearly mentioned that in carrying out the repairs the cost likely to be incurred may be more than two years rent and in such circumstances petitioner is prepared to pay the enhanced rent. The Prescribed Authority could take notice of this averments made on the part of the tenant and thereafter pass an order fixing the reasonable amount for carrying out the repairs and within the certain period. So far as the interest of the landlord is concerned it can be safeguarded by not certifying the amount recoverable by tenant, more than two years rent, and further by enhancing rent as contemplated under section 6 of the Act. Bat the repairs without which the tenant cannot use the accommodation in dispute, cannot be refused by prescribed authority on the ground that the amount necessary for carrying out the repairs would exceed the limit of two years rent The cases relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts. In case of Mohammed Rati v. Prescribed Authority, 1988 (!) ARC 29, prescribed authority recorded a finding that the condition of the roof of the shop is such that it cannot be repaired and the reconstruction of the same has become necessary. In case of Mohammed Rati v. Prescribed Authority, 1988 (!) ARC 29, prescribed authority recorded a finding that the condition of the roof of the shop is such that it cannot be repaired and the reconstruction of the same has become necessary. As the reconstruction cannot be directed under section 28 of the Act the application was rejected. In my opinion the circumstances in the present case are entirely different. Similarly in case of Abdul Latif v. Mohammad Shafi, 1987 ALJ 273, landlord had already given an application under section 21 (1) (b) of the Act for release of the building for purposes of demolition and reconstruction as the building was in dilapidated condition. This court took the view that as the prescribed authority while deciding the aforesaid application for release may also examine that only by major repairs the condition of the building can be made good and its demolition and reconstruction would not be necessary. The application under section 28 (4) of the Act was held not maintainable which is a summary remedy. The observations regarding the rent of two years were casual and without considering the provisions in detail. The facts of the present case are entirely different and in my opinion, cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable. 7. There is yet another question in the present case. Petitioner and respondent no. 2 were at issue as to whether any repairs as claimed by petitioner were necessary. The case of respondent no. 2 was that the building is in good condition and does not require any repairs. The Prescribed Authority however, has failed to record any finding on this aspect of the case which should have been the first step before enforcing the obligation of the landlord regarding repairs under section 28 of the Act. The Prescribed Authority must record a specific finding regarding the extent of repairs necessary as contemplated under section 26 |2) of the Act and also record finding regarding the amount likely to be required in carrying out the repairs, then he should call upon the landlord to carry out the repairs within a certain period. However in case of failure on the part of the landlord he should permit the tenant to carry out the repairs within the specified period. However in case of failure on the part of the landlord he should permit the tenant to carry out the repairs within the specified period. The Prescribed Authority in the present case has failed to follow the procedure contemplated under sub-sections (4) (5) and (6) of section 28 of the Act. The application has been rejected on the solitary ground that as the repairs may require expenditure of amount exceeding two years rent, the application cannot be granted in my opinion, the order of the Prescribed Authority suffers from a manifest error of law. 8. For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 22nd November, 1991 passed by Prescribed Authority is quashed. The application filed by petitioner shall stand restored to its original number and it shall be decided afresh after hearing parties in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. As the application was filed by petitioner in the year 1989 the Prescribed Authority shall decide it within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him, No order as to costs. Petition allowed.