JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.—The order passed by the Appellate Authority, Chamba on 13th July, 1990, permitting the respondent to carry oat repairs to the shop to the extent of Rs. 8,107 by allowing the appeal of respondent, thereby reversing the order passed on 20th March, 1989 by the Rent Controller, Chamba dismissing the respondents application, is under challenge in this revision petition filed under section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent, who has been a tenant in a double storeyed shop situate in Dogra Bazar, Chamba town under the petitioner, on 22nd August, 1988, moved an application under section 13(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying that he be permitted to carry out the repairs to the shop without delay. It was alleged that shop in question was rented out to his father about 23-24 years ago and thereafter he had been in occupation thereof as a tenant on payment of Rs 250 monthly rent. On the intervening night of 25th and z6tia April. 1988, a fire broke out in Dogra Bazar as a result of which the petitioners building also, Including the tenanted shop, was got completely damaged. After the fire, business has come to a stand-still. The landlord was approached for repairs, but such a request was not acceded to. Since the shop had become unusable because of fire, it required immediate repairs, the estimated cost of which was Rs 8,107. 3. The landlord-petitioner opposed the respondents prayer by contending that the application is not maintainable. Due to fire, the shop had been destroyed completely and there was no question of permitting the respondent to carry out repairs since the word repair pre-supposes the existence of a building. 4. Issues were framed by the Rent Controller. After parties led evidence, the respondents petition was dismissed holding that the entire premises had been burnt down and under the Act reconstruction of the entire building at the instance of tenant was not permissible. Since the subject-matter of tenancy had ceased to exist, there was no question of permitting the tenant to re-construct the building in the garb of carrying out the repairs. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant carried the matter in appeal. Since the subject-matter of tenancy had ceased to exist, there was no question of permitting the tenant to re-construct the building in the garb of carrying out the repairs. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant carried the matter in appeal. The Appellate Authority through the impugned order allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Rent Controller holding that the tenant can be permitted lawfully to repair and re-erect the damaged and collapsed portions respectively of the walls and can be permitted to lay a new roof over it. Such acts as observed by the Appellate Authority amounts to repair. Repairs, howsoever, extensive or expensive, were necessary to make the shop useable and habitable. Consequently, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of Rent Controller, the tenants application was allowed. He was permitted to carry out repairs by incurring an expenditure of Rs. 8,107. It was clarified that the tenant shall be entitled to deduct only a sum of Rs, 750 out of the amount of expenses. The tenant was also directed not to carry out any change to the structure of the shop. It was also directed that the shop be re-constructed of the same size and dimension, as it existed before the fire. It is this order, which is under challenge in this revision petition. 6. At the behest of the petitioner-landlord, it has been contended that the impugned order is not only palpably wrong and contrary to the provisions of law, but is also without jurisdiction. The Authorities, exercising powers under the Rent Control Act have no jurisdiction to permit a tenant to re-construct the tenanted premises, which have completely been destroyed. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent-tenant has vehemently urged that the order is perfectly legal and valid in law. He has tried to support the order by urging that what has been permitted by the Appellate Authority is to effect repairs, which will not amount to re-construct the building. Learned Counsel for the parties have also placed reliance on a number of judgments in support of their respective contentions. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned Order. Learned Counsel for the parties have also taken me through the entire record of the case and in my considered opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 9. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned Order. Learned Counsel for the parties have also taken me through the entire record of the case and in my considered opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 9. Section 13 of the Act under the heading landlords duty to keep the building or rented land in good repairs, says : "13. (1) Every landlord shall be bound to keep the building or rented land in good and tenantable repairs. (2) If the landlord neglects or fails to make, within a reasonable time after receiving a notice in writing, any repairs which he is bound to make under sub-section (i), the tenant may make the same himself and deduct the expenses of such repairs from the rent or otherwise recover them from the landlord Provided that 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 any repairs without which the building or rented land is no longer habitable or useable, except with undue inconvenience, are to be made and the landlord neglects or fails to make them after receiving notice in writing, the tenant may apply to the Controller for permission to get such repairs done on his own and may submit to the Controller an estimate of the cost of such repairs, and thereupon the Controller may after giving the landlord an opportunity of being heard and after considering such estimate of the cost and making such inquiries as he may consider necessary, by an order in writing, permit the tenant to make such repairs at such cost as may be specified in the order and it shall thereafter be lawful for the tenant to get such repairs done on his own and to deduct the cost thereof, from the rent, which shall in no case exceed the amount so specified or otherwise recover it from the landlord; Provided that the amount so deducted or recoverable in any year shall not exceed 3 months rent payable by the tenant; Provided further that if any repairs not covered by the said amount are necessary in the opinion of the Controller and the tenant agrees to bear the excess cost himself, the Controller may permit the tenant to make such repairs." 10. A bare reading of the provision shows that every landlord is duty bound to keep the tenanted premises in good and tenantable repairs. On failure to perform this duty, right has been conferred upon the tenant to carry out repairs and deduct the expenses so incurred from the rent or to recover the same from the landlord, provided that the amount so deducted or recoverable, in any year, shall not exceed I/I2th of the rent payable during the year, Sub section (3) makes an additional provision in such of the cases where the building or rented land is no longer habitable or use-able, for want of repairs. The tenant has been conferred a right to approach the Controller for necessary directions in this behalf for carrying out repairs, to make the building or rented land in good and tenantable repairs. In such of the eventualities, the amount to be deducted or re-coverable from the landlord, in a year, shall not exceed three months rent The question that would arise for consideration Is as to what is meant by the repairs ? Permission can be accorded by the Controller to the tenant to make such repairs". Sub-section (1) as noticed above, enjoins a duty upon the landlord to keep the premises or rented land in "good and tenant-able repairs". Neither the word repair’ nor the term ‘good and tenantable repairs has been defined under the Act. These two terminologies have been a matter of considerable discussion and definitions have been provided in various judgments. In 2nd Edition Butterworths Words and Phrases, Volume 4, the term tenantable repair’ as defined in various judgments has been noticed as under; "What is «tenantable repairs ? Definitions have been given at different times by the Courts. In Botcher v. Mackintosh, (1839) 2 Mood and R 186, Alderson, B. directed a jury as to the law with respect to a covenant by a lessee to put premises into habitable repair, and so to deliver up the same. Definitions have been given at different times by the Courts. In Botcher v. Mackintosh, (1839) 2 Mood and R 186, Alderson, B. directed a jury as to the law with respect to a covenant by a lessee to put premises into habitable repair, and so to deliver up the same. He says (I am reading from Moody and Robinsons Report) : It is difficult to suggest any material difference between the term "habitable repair" used in this agreement, and the more common expression "tenantable repair" ; they must both import such a state as to repair that the premises might be used and dwelt in not only with safety, but with reasonable comfort, by the class of persons by whom, and for the sort of purposes for which, they were to be occupied. That is the whole definition, and, so far as it goes, it is a good one.- The result of the cases seems to be this the question whether the house was, or was not in tenantable repair when the tenancy began is immaterial; but the age of the house is very material with respect to the obligation both to keep and to leave it in tenant-able repair. It is obvious that the obligation is very different when the house is fifty years older than it was when the tenancy began. Lopes, L J , has drawn up a definition of the term tenantable repair with which i entirely agree. It is this “Good tenantable repair" is such repair as, having regard to the age, character, and locality of the house, would make it reasonably fit for the occupation of a reasonably-minded tenant of the class who would be likely to take it. The age of the house must be taken into account, because nobody could reasonably expect that a house 200 years old should be in the same condition of repair as a house lately built ; the character of the house must be taken into account, because the same class of repairs as would be necessary to a palace would be wholly unnecessary to a cottage ; and the locality of the house must be taken into account, because the state of repair necessary for a house in Grosvenor Square would be wholly different from the state of repair necessary for a house in Spitalfields. The house need not be put into the same condition as when the tenant took it ; it need not be put into perfect repair ; it need only be put into such a state of repair as renders it reasonably fit for the occupation of a reasonably-minded tenant of the class who would be likely to take it." Proudfoot v. Hart, (1890) 25 QBD 42, C. A per Lord Esher, M. R., at pp. 50-53. 11. In nut-shell, it can be said that good tenantable repairs has to be construed in the facts and circumstances of each case as the repair having regard to the age, character and locality of the building, so as to make it reasonably fit for the occupation of a reasonably-minded tenant of the class, who would be likely to take it. Inter-linked with the question that when the entire building is razed to the ground or is completely destroyed in fire, would its reconstruction be considered as amounting to carrying oat repairs or can in such like situation, a tenant be permitted to carry out repairs, in the garb of reconstructing it and to bring it to a good tenantable repair ? 12. The evidence on record is very clear, which has in fact neither been referred to, nor the same has been critically examined by the Appellate Authority. The tenant Suresh Kumar appeared as PW 1, who also placed reliance upon the statement of Vinod Kumar, PW 2, who had taken photographs of the burnt shop. PW 3 Inder Jit Bakshi, is a draftsman of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. According to him, the shop was double storeyed and an estimate had been prepared by him only with respect to one shop and not for the second storey. The walls were made of brick-lime, which due to fire have come down, and according to him in case the entire building is to be reconstructed, its estimated cost would be Rs 2 lacs and not Rs. 8,6 00 or 9,000, The landlord has examined himself as RW I and placed reliance upon the statement of Jai Ram, RW 2, Sub- Divisional Officer, Municipal Committee, Chamba, who claimed to have prepared an estimate of the shop for reconstruction According to him, the entire building had been destroyed. It is not possible to carry out any repairs. 8,6 00 or 9,000, The landlord has examined himself as RW I and placed reliance upon the statement of Jai Ram, RW 2, Sub- Divisional Officer, Municipal Committee, Chamba, who claimed to have prepared an estimate of the shop for reconstruction According to him, the entire building had been destroyed. It is not possible to carry out any repairs. The only way is to restore it by reconstruction at an estimated cost of Rs 1,16,496. 13. In view of this evidence, there is no manner of doubt that on the spot, there is nothing except the burnt walls of the ground floor only. There is no roof, no second floor, no wood work etc. The estimate got produced and relied upon by the tenant is only for a make-shift arrangement for one shop in the ground floor. Permission has been accorded to the tenant to carry out repairs at an estimated cost of only Rs. 8,107. The premises in occupation of the tenant were a double storeyed shop and not a shop in the ground floor The amount to be spent for the so called repair will not be sufficient, nor the manner in which the same is likely to be utilised result in bringing back the premises to a good tenantable repairs9, namely, double storeyed shop The only way to do is to reconstruct the entire from base to top at an estimated cost of over a lac of rupees. 14. What would amount to carry out repairs9 in the case of a thatched old shed made of very flimsy materials like bamboo and arecanut stem was considered in Augustine v. Chandy and others, AIR 1953 Tra-Co. 462. Placing reliance on some observations made by Lord Justice Fletcher- Moulton in Lurcott v. Wakelly, (1911) 1 KB 905, it was held that; "in the case of structures, especially of the nature in question, repair implies renewal and replacement of parts that have decayed” In Ullal Dinkar Rao v. M. Ratna Bat, AIR 1958 Mys 77, restoration of cow shed and bath room, both of which had been destroyed in heavy rains was held not amounting to repairs, within the meaning of the words as defined in section 1 s of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act No. 25 of 1949). It was held that the meaning to be given to the word repair depends upon the context in which it occurs. A repair may require a renewal or replacement but all replacements or renewals are not necessarily repairs. Essential difference in the case of a building between repair’ and reconstruction was drawn and it was held that while the restoration of the stability or safety of a subordinate or subsidiary part of a building or any portion of it, can, in law be considered as a repair but the reconstruction of the entirety of the subject-matter cannot be so regarded. Reliance was placed upon the aforementioned observations of Lord Justice Fletcher-Moulton in (19U) t KB 905, which decision had also been referred to with approval in Rhodesia Rly. Ltd v. Income-tax Collector, Bechuanaland (193 ) AC 368, wherein Lord Justice Buckley remarked " Repair and renew’ are not words expressive of a clear contrast. Repair always involves renewal ; renewal of a part, of a subordinate part, A skylight leaks ; repair is effected by hacking out the putties, putting in new ones, and renewing the paint A roof falls out of repair ; the necessary work is to replace the decayed timbers by sound wood ; to substitute sound tiles or slates for those which are cracked, broken or missing ; to make good the flashings arid the like Part of a garden wall tumbles down; repair is effected by building it up again with new mortar, and, so far as necessary new bricks or stone’ Repair is restoration by renewal or replacement of subsidiary parts of a whole. The underlining (here in inverted commas) is mine. Renewal, as distinguished from repair, is reconstruction of the entirety meaning by the entirety not necessarily the whole but substantially the whole subject-matter under discussion. I agree that if repair of the whole subject-matter has become impossible a covenant to repair does not carry an obligation to renew or replace That has been affirmed by Lister v Lane, 0893) 2 QB 212 (F) and Wright v, Lawson, (1903) 19 TLR 310 (G). I agree that if repair of the whole subject-matter has become impossible a covenant to repair does not carry an obligation to renew or replace That has been affirmed by Lister v Lane, 0893) 2 QB 212 (F) and Wright v, Lawson, (1903) 19 TLR 310 (G). But if that which I have said is accurate, it follows that the question of repair is in every case one of degree, and the test is whether the act to be done is one which in substance is the renewal or replacement of defective parts, or the renewal or replacement of substantially the whole," 15. The apt remarks of Lord Justice Buckley In Lutcotts case {supra\ while dealing with a question as to the interpretation of a covenant between landlord and tenant, which required the later to substantially repair and keep in thorough repair and in good condition the demised premises9 were made as follows “Repair and renew’ are not words expressive of a clear contrast. Repair always involves renewal ; renewal of a part of a subordinate part A skylight leaks ; repair is effected by hacking out the putties, putting in new ones and renewing the paint A roof falls out of repair ; the necessary work is to replace the decayed timbers by sound wood ; to substitute sound tiles or slates for those which are cracked, broken, or are missing ; to make good the flashings, and the light. Part of a garden wali tumbles down ; repair is effected by building it up again with new mortar, and, so far as necessary, new bricks or stone. Repair is restoration by renewal or replacement of subsidiary parts of a whole. Renewal, as distinguished from repair, is reconstruction of the entirety, meaning by the entirety not necessarily the whole but substantially the whole subject-matter under discussion. I agree that if repair of the whole subject-matter has become impossible a covenant to repair does not carry an obligation to renew or replace." 16. In Commissioner of Income-tax B and O Patna v. Darbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd, AIR 1956 Patna 134. it was held that a renewal may be a repair’ or reconstruction’. It is repair only, if it is restoration or replacement of subsidiary parts of the old machinery. In Commissioner of Income-tax B and O Patna v. Darbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd, AIR 1956 Patna 134. it was held that a renewal may be a repair’ or reconstruction’. It is repair only, if it is restoration or replacement of subsidiary parts of the old machinery. If on the other hand, there is replacement of the entire machinery or substantially the whole of it, there is no question of repair. The test, which was applied was whether the act of replacement is one which is in substance replacement of defective parts or replacement of entire machinery or substantial part of the entire machinery. 17. There are a few other Judgments, which were also relied upon, adopting same views, which are not being noticed since it would amount to just repetition. The Division Bench judgment in Dr. V. Sidharthan v. Pattiori Ramadasan, AIR 1984 Ker 181, was also relied upon in support of the proposition that where the subject-matter of lease like the building is totally destroyed, the tenant is not entitled to squat on the ground where building stood or construct a new building in its place or require the land lord to put up a new structure. A demise must have a subject-matter and if it is destroyed, the lease comes to an end. In the instant case, this question need not be gone into as to whether by destruction, the tenancy has come to an end or not since no issue was claimed on such a plea raised by the landlord and moreover the tenants application seeking permission to carry out repairs can be disposed of on other grounds. 18. What was required to be considered by the two authorities below, while considering the tenants prayer was as to whether the tenant can be allowed permission to carry out repairs, in the light of the evidence on record or not, when in fact there was no roof over the building, the walls of the first floor had fallen down, there was no wood-work or floor over the ground floor The work which is required to be undertaken for bringing the premises to the same condition would, in these circumstances, be by renewal or replacement of substantially the whole or in other words recon struction of the entirety. It is not renewal or replacement of defective parts only, since on the spot no part is surviving. It is not renewal or replacement of defective parts only, since on the spot no part is surviving. Walls are to be constructed afresh. Doors, windows, roof etc. are to be constructed afresh including constructing the entire first floor. A Controller, exercising jurisdiction under the Act has only jurisdiction to permit the carrying out of repairs but in the garb of the same it has no jurisdiction to allow the carrying of repairs to the degree which might be termed as reconstruction. The difference between repair and reconstruction is one of degree and the test is whether the act permitted to be done is one which in substance is the renewal or replacement of defective parts or the same is the renewal or replacement of substantially the whole. The obligation of the landlord under the Act is to keep the premises in a good and tenantable repairs. To being the premises in a good and tenantable repairs, it might require a renewal or replacement of defective parts and even restoration of the stability or safety, a subordinate or subsidiary part of a building or a portion thereof, but the same would not amount to repair if it is reconstruction, renewal or replacement of the entirety of the subject-matter. The acts which are required to be done in the case in hand are virtually reconstructing the building in entirety and the same would not fall within the ambit of repairs. 19. In view of the aforementioned, the Appellate Authority was not justified in allowing the appeal of the tenant and thereby setting aside the order of the Rent Controller. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the application of the tenant is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Revision petition allowed.