JUDGMENT K. Narayana Kurup, J. 1. Heard counsel on both sides. 2. Section 17(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act provides in unmistakable and categorical terms that "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 he deducted with interest at six per cent per annum from the rent which is payable by him". As per Ext. P4, order of the Accommodation Controller which is under challenge, it is found that the building requires repairs and not reconstruction as alleged by the petitioner. The findings in Ext. P4 are as follows: "On a perusal of the records of the latest case report of Revenue Inspector 'C1' disposition of PW1, PW2 and DE1 it is undoubtedly proved that the petitioner is a tenant eligible to get directions to effect repairs requested in the petition. I therefore, order that the respondent to repair and restore the demolished or damaged portion of the eastern wall of the shop room No.VI/78 using laterite stones or bricks, and cement on a permanent nature as was earlier, plaster both sides of walls, repair and restore the broken, lost tiles of room No. VI/79 and the extension and to provide the amenities thereto of the shop room in the possession of the petitioner scheduled in the petitioner within a month to its original position and in default of the respondent the petitioner is permitted to carry out the above said work and to recover a sum of Rs.40055/- (Rupees forty thousand and fifty five only) as cost of the repairs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of completion of such repairs till realisation from the rent payable by him to the respondent for the shop rooms". From the extracted portion of the impugned order, I am satisfied that what has been directed to be done is repair and restoration of a dilapidated wall of the tenanted building which however cannot be characterised as 'reconstruction' alleged by the petitioner-landlord. From the extracted portion of the impugned order, I am satisfied that what has been directed to be done is repair and restoration of a dilapidated wall of the tenanted building which however cannot be characterised as 'reconstruction' alleged by the petitioner-landlord. The execution of repair of the wall became a grave necessity as a result of culpable negligence on the part of the petitioner in effecting timely maintenance to the building negligence on the part of the petitioner in effecting timely maintenance to the building which is clear from Ext.R1(a) produced along with the counter affidavit of the first respondent-tenant filed before this court in which case he cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own lapses. The order Ext.P4 cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary nor does it suffers from any jurisdictional defect or violation of the principles of natural justice. That apart, various findings contained in Ext.P4 are essentially findings of fact which cannot be effectively adjudicated under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In the aforesaid view, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Since the landlord -petitioner had unnecessarily driven the tenant - first respondent to this court, I am satisfied that this is a fit case where cost should be awarded for the contumacious conduct of the petitioner. Accordingly, the O.P. is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 2,500/-.