JUDGMENT P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. In this writ petition, the landlord of a non residential building challenges Ext. P5 order passed by the second respondent - Accommodation Controller under S.17(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short the Act). Third respondent is the tenant of the building. He filed Ext. P1 petition before the second respondent alleging that the writ petitioner landlord failed to make periodical maintenance and repairs of the building let out to him on rental basis. The landlord filed Ext. P2 objection wherein it was contended that damage to the building was caused by the tenant and maintenance sought to be done would not come within the scope of periodical maintenance and necessary repairs of the building, in which case Ext. P1 petition itself was not maintainable. However, the Accommodation Controller by Ext. P3 order directed the landlord to make immediate arrangements to effects repairs of the building. It was in that circumstance the present writ petition was filed by the landlord. 2. After admitting the writ petition this court in C. M. P. No. 8857 of 1990 passed the following interim order. ''Both sides may file estimates of the cost of repair before the Accommodation Controller within two weeks from today. Thereafter, the Accommodation Controller may order the party offering the lower estimate to do the work after preparing an inventory of the state of the building or lost part of it which is being repaired, in the presence of the parties or their representatives. As to who should bear the cost of repair will be decided in the writ petition." Both sides admitted before me that the tenant has effected maintenance and repair as ordered by the Accommodation Controller in pursuance of the interim order of this court. 3. S.17(2) of the Act reads thus: "Notwithstanding any law, custom, usage or contract to the contrary the landlord shall be bound to attend to the periodical maintenance and necessary repairs of the building. 3. S.17(2) of the Act reads thus: "Notwithstanding any law, custom, usage or contract to the contrary the landlord shall be bound to attend to the periodical maintenance and necessary repairs of the building. If landlord fails to attend to such maintenance or repairs to the buildings and amenities thereto within a reasonable time after notice is given by the tenant, it shall be competent for the Accommodation Controller to direct on application by the tenant that such maintenance and repairs may be attended to by the tenant and that the charges and cost thereof may be deducted with interest at six per cent per annum from the rent which is payable by him." It is the obligation of the landlord to attend to the periodical maintenance and necessary repairs of the building.' If landlord fails to attend to such maintenance or repairs within a reasonable time after notice is given by the tenant, than the Accommodation Controller is competent to direct, on application by the tenant, that such maintenance or repairs may be done by the tenant. Therefore the Accommodation Controller gets jurisdiction to deal with the application for ordering periodical maintenance and necessary repairs of the building only when the landlord fails to effect maintenance or repairs of the building pursuant to the notice given by the tenant. A Division Bench of this court in 1980 KLT SN 9 (W. A. No. 114/79) held "failure to effect 'maintenance and repairs of the building is a jurisdictional condition, on the satisfaction of which depends the Accommodation Controller's power and authority to direct the tenant to carry out the maintenance and repairs himself, and adjust the same against the rent payable. Being a jurisdictional condition, the question whether there was failure to attend to such maintenance and repairs' is open to review in writ jurisdiction under Art.226. What is required and contemplated by S.17(2) is only a 'maintenance or repair' and not a 'renovation', much as less a reconstruction of the building". Being a jurisdictional condition, the question whether there was failure to attend to such maintenance and repairs' is open to review in writ jurisdiction under Art.226. What is required and contemplated by S.17(2) is only a 'maintenance or repair' and not a 'renovation', much as less a reconstruction of the building". This court again in Kunhaleema v. Accommodation Controller ( 1982 KLT 446 ) held thus: "Under S.17(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent B Control) Act, the landlord is entitled to reasonable time for effecting repairs after service of notice on him, The tenant is to approach the Accommodation Controller and the letter is to direct the former to effect the repairs only in case the landlord falls to do the repairs within reasonable time after receipt of notice. In other words, the Accommodation Controller gets jurisdiction to direct the tenant to effect repairs only if the landlord fails to do so within a reasonable time after receipt of the notice mentioned in S.17(2)." S.17(2) contemplates only ''periodical maintenance and necessary repairs" of the building and not reconstruction or renovation. If the work alleged to be involved in an application filed by the tenant is amounted to reconstruction or renovation, the Accommodation Controller has no jurisdiction to deal with such application. Therefore, the application by the tenant under S.17(2) Shall be confined to periodical maintenance and, necessary repairs. In case the landlord admits what is sought to be done is only maintenance and repair, then the Accommodation Controller gets jurisdiction to deal with the application. On the other hand, if the landlord pleads what it involved in the application is reconstruction or renovation then there shall be an enquiry touching on this jurisdictional facts. 4. In this case an argument has been advanced on behalf of the landlord that Ext. P1 application itself is not maintainable Inasmuch as what is sought to be done is to renovate or reconstruct the building. It is further argued that damage had been caused to the building by the tenant. From Ext. P2 objection if appears that such a contention has been obviously raised by the landlord while opposing Ext. P1 application. In Ext. P5 the contention of the landlord is narrated as this: '.. It is further argued that damage had been caused to the building by the tenant. From Ext. P2 objection if appears that such a contention has been obviously raised by the landlord while opposing Ext. P1 application. In Ext. P5 the contention of the landlord is narrated as this: '.. It is due to the storage of water and sugar in the building that the damages have caused and that the building required renovation" Therefore, it cannot be said that the contention that damage was caused to the building by the tenant is not raised or argued by the landlord. However, she Accommodation Controller relied on the report of the revenue Inspector which reveals that the building requires only repairs and not renovation. However the case of the landlord is the Revenue Inspector had inspected the premises at the instance of the tenant and it was done without notice to him. Whatever that be when the landlord has admittedly raised a specific contention that what is sought by the tenant is renovation of the building and not periodical maintenance and repairs, the question necessarily requires serious consideration by the Accommodation controller. Learned counsel for the landlord reiterated that heavy damage has been caused to the building by the tenant and it is that damage which is sought to be repaired under the guise of periodical maintenance and necessary repairs. It is also brought to ray notice a decision of this court is O. P. No. 6941 of 1985 (J. Abdulrahiman v. State of Kerala and others) wherein it is observed: 'The Saw only requires the landlord to carry out the repairs which arise consequent on ordinary or normal user. Damages caused by the tenant himself cannot be get repaired at the expense of the landlord. An enquiry has therefore to be conducted as to whether the damages in question have been contributed by the tenant or not; This court further observed: "A finding on this jurisdictional aspect is required before an order is passed under S.17(2) directing repairs to be carried 'out by the landlord". An enquiry has therefore to be conducted as to whether the damages in question have been contributed by the tenant or not; This court further observed: "A finding on this jurisdictional aspect is required before an order is passed under S.17(2) directing repairs to be carried 'out by the landlord". Therefore in a case where landlord raises a plea that the damage has been caused to the building by the tenant and it is that damage which is sought to be repaired after obtaining orders in that behalf and if such plea is bona fide, it is the duty of the Accommodation Controller to decide that plea primarily. Such a decision is so required because the jurisdiction to entertain an application under S.17(2) is depended on it. In case the Accommodation Controller comes to the conclusion that what is fought to be repaired by invoking the provisions of S.17(2) is the damage caused to the building by the tenant, then the Accommodation Controller will have no jurisdiction to entertain or deal with the application. On the other hand, after deciding this preliminary issue the Accommodation Controller finds that there is no substance in the plea raised by the landlord he can thin proceed with the application under S.17(2) and decide the matter finally. Since in this case repairs had already been effected pursuant to the orders of this court in view of the urgency of the matter, I find it not feasible at this stage to direct a preliminary enquiry on the question of maintainability of Ext. P1 application filed by the tenant. 5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I direct the Accommodation Controller to ascertain as to whether the tenant had caused any damage to the building, and if so, to what extent. I am persuaded to do this because the second respondent has not recorded any independent finding in Ext. P5 on the question of damage caused by the tenant to the building. If damage alleged is caused by the tenant and the orders of this court and the Accommodation Controller were used to repair such damage, then the tenant is not entitled to the cost of repair. P5 on the question of damage caused by the tenant to the building. If damage alleged is caused by the tenant and the orders of this court and the Accommodation Controller were used to repair such damage, then the tenant is not entitled to the cost of repair. On the other hand, if the Accommodation Controller finds that the tenant has not caused any damage to the building and what is done is only periodical maintenance and repair, the tenant is entitled to the cost of repair. Another infirmity noticed in Ext. P5 order is that it does not fix the cost of repair to be met by the tenant in effecting the repair, Normally it is the duty of the Accommodation Controller into fix the reasonable cost of repair after hearing the views of the landlord as well as the tenant. It cannot at any rate be left to the tenant alone to decide the cost of repair an adjudication or the quantum of cost of repair by the Accommodation Controller is essential before passing orders on the application under S.17(2) of the Act unless there is some agreement between the parties in that behalf. Even in a case where the Accommodation Controller is compelled to pass an immediate order in view of the urgency of the situation and in the absence of the landlord, a reasonable cost of repair shall be fixed in the order under S.17(2) of the Act. 6. In view of the aforesaid reasons, Ext. P5 order of the second respondent is set aside. The accommodation Controller is directed to consider Ext. P1 application under S.17(2) of the Act filed by the third respondent afresh on merits and in view of the directions give above. The writ petition is disposed of as above.