Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. This matter has been placed before us on a reference by learned single Judge. We are in this case concerned with the scope of Sec. 13 as well as Sec. 17 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965. Question essentially to be considered is the scope of the expression 'amenities' occurring in Sec. 13 and 17 of the Act. Brief facts are necessary to understand the question raised. 2. Tenant filed application under Sec. 13 of the Act praying for a direction to the landlord to replace tiles removed from the roof of the building to prevent rain water falling inside the shop room occupied by him. Tenant alleged that with an ulterior motive of evicting him, the landlord caused removal of some tiles from the roof of the building with the result roof has become leaky with the incessant flow of rain water. Accommodation Controller therefore passed an order on 15th July 1992 directing the landlord to replace the tiles on the roof of the building or carry out necessary repairs, so that rain water would not fall into the shop room and that the pleasant enjoyment of the room by the tenant would not be affected. Landlord aggrieved by the order approached the District Collector who held as follows : "There was no evidence before the Accommodation controller or in the report of the Revenue Inspector at the time of passing this order, that the appellant had broken the tiles to let rain water inside and therefore it cannot be said that the appellants had cut off an amenity provided to the respondent. Repairs to building falls under Sec. 17(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act and the respondent ought to have taken remedy under this section." Aggrieved by the order of the District Collector this writ petition has been preferred by the tenant. 3. Counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that the Accommodation Controller has got the power to direct the landlord to replace the tiles under Sec. 13 of the Act. Counsel submitted if there is removal or withdrawal of amenities enjoyed by the tenant Accommodation Controller has got the power to give appropriate direction under Sec. 13 of the Act. 3. Counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that the Accommodation Controller has got the power to direct the landlord to replace the tiles under Sec. 13 of the Act. Counsel submitted if there is removal or withdrawal of amenities enjoyed by the tenant Accommodation Controller has got the power to give appropriate direction under Sec. 13 of the Act. Counsel appearing for the landlord on the other hand, took up the stand that the landlord had not removed any tiles and if at all there are any broken tiles it might be due to lack of maintenance or repair and the remedy open to the tenant was to move the Accommodation Controller under Sec. 17 of the Act. Further it was stated that no evidence was adduced before the Accommodation Controller stating that landlord had removed the tiles. Report of the Revenue Officer does not disclose that fact. In view of the above mentioned contentions we have to decide the question whether petition preferred by the tenant under Sec. 13 is maintainable before the Accommodation Controller in a case where the landlord has removed the tiles of the tenanted premises intentionally or otherwise. We may first examine the scope of Sec. 13 of the Act. Relevant portion of the same is extracted below for easy reference : 13.(1) No landlord shall, without just or sufficient cause, cut off or withhold any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. (2) A tenant in occupation of a building may, if the landlord has contravened the provision of this section, make an application to the Accommodation Controller complaining of such contravention. (3) If the tenant satisfies the Accommodation controller that the amenities were cut off or withheld with a view to compel him to vacate the building or to pay enhanced rent, the Accommodation Controller may pass an interim order directing the landlord to restore the amenities immediately, pending the enquiry referred to in sub-sec. (4). Explanation : An interim order may be passed under this sub section without giving notice to the landlord. Any interim order so passed may be modified or cancelled by final order and the Accommodation Controller may give effect to such modification or cancellation. (4). Explanation : An interim order may be passed under this sub section without giving notice to the landlord. Any interim order so passed may be modified or cancelled by final order and the Accommodation Controller may give effect to such modification or cancellation. (4) If the Accommodation controller on inquiry finds that the tenant has been in enjoyment of the amenities and that they were cut off or withheld by the landlord without just or sufficient cause, he shall make an order directing the landlord to restore such amenities and for the purpose of enforcement of such orders, the Accommodation Controller may exercise all the powers of a Civil Court in executing a decree for injunction or for specific performance." The above provision was enacted for enabling the tenant to enjoy all the amenities of the tenanted premises and landlord has no power to cut off or withhold any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant without just or sufficient cause. If the landlord without any just and reasonable cause cut off the electricity, water, drainage etc. to the tenanted premises, evidently the tenant can approach the Accommodation controller for appropriate orders. So also when the tenanted premises let out included a godown and a jetty for loading and unloading cargo, the jetty and loading bridge are amenities attached to the building leased out. If the landlord tried to cut off those amenities the Accommodation Controller can intervene. The landlord also cannot obstruct the use of the garage attached to flat occupied by the tenant. This would amount to cutting of amenities. Question posed for consideration in this case is when the landlord forcibly removes the tiles of the building it would amount to cutting of amenities. Contention was raised by the counsel for the tenant that it would. On the other hand, counsel for the landlord took up the stand that Accommodation Controller could act only on the basis of Sec. 17 so as to direct maintenance or repairs to the building. Scope of expression 'amenity' came up for consideration before this though in a different context in Swaminatha Iyer v. Ramachandra Kurup, 1965 K.L.T. 356. In that case it was held that kitchen and well are necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the building. But they are not amenities in the sense in which that expression is used in Sec. 13. Scope of expression 'amenity' came up for consideration before this though in a different context in Swaminatha Iyer v. Ramachandra Kurup, 1965 K.L.T. 356. In that case it was held that kitchen and well are necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the building. But they are not amenities in the sense in which that expression is used in Sec. 13. In that case it was held that even assuming that they are amenities, the tenant is not entitled to have them reconstructed since the kitchen has been dismantled and the well filled up by the Municipality. In that case it was found there is nothing on record to show that the landlord had cut off amenities without just or reasonable cause. 4. In Narayanan v. Appukutty, 1952-2 M.L.J. S.N. 31, it was held that an amenity is nothing but a convenience . In that case it was held that the roof of a building forms part and parcel of a building and that it cannot be considered to be an amenity. In Soorajmall v. I.N. Drug Co., AIR 1956 Calcutta 187, it was observed as follows : "If the roof is leaking the landlord may be called upon to stop the leaking and that can be done either by having a special coating over the roof as is now available or feasible or by some other means. If there in any portion of the roof which is likely to collaspse, that is a matter which may be reported to the corporation for taking necessary steps as against the defaulting party. But it is outside the scope of S. 38, Rent Control Act, and beyond the competence of the Rent Controller." In Ullar Dinkar Rao v. M. Ratna Bai, AIR 1958 Mysore 77 it was held that a bath room is an amenity to a building, as the bath room enhances the desirability of a house for the purpose of residence and contributes to the enjoyment of the occupant of the house. In Achuthan Pillai v. Ameena Bai, 1982 K.L.T. (SN) 27 it was held the jetty and loading bridge are amenities attached to the building leased out. In Kudwa v. Madhardas Vallabhadhas , AIR 1979 Bomb. 49 it was held that the tenant of a flat building has a right to park his car in the compound of the building which held to be an amenity. In Kudwa v. Madhardas Vallabhadhas , AIR 1979 Bomb. 49 it was held that the tenant of a flat building has a right to park his car in the compound of the building which held to be an amenity. In Mariakutty Umma v. Moosakutty Haji, 1969 K.L.T. 990 it was held that the expression 'amenity' in relation to immovable property signifies pleasant circumstances or features or advantages. It was held that tenant of a hotel constructing a drain with the permission of the landlord for the flow of refuse water and garbage and using it for about 10 years. It is an amenity. 5. Sec. 17 of the Act deals with periodical repairs and maintenance. Relevant portion of the Section reads as follows : "17(2) 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." This section starts with a non obstante clause and the landlord is made bound to maintain and do necessary repairs of the building. If landlord neglects to do such maintenance or repairs within a reasonable time after notice is given by the tenant, then the Accommodation Controller is competent to permit the tenant to attend to the repairs and the expenses so incurred may be deducted with six percent interest per anum from the rent payable to the landlord. Application by tenant under Sec. 17(2) shall be confined to periodical maintenance and necessary repairs. If the work alleged to be involved in an application filed by the tenant amounts to reconstruction or renovation, Accommodation Controller has no jurisdiction to deal with such application. If we analyse both the above mentioned sections it is evident in the case of Sec. 13 there is a positive action on the part of the landlord if he cut off or withheld any amenities enjoyed by the tenant. If we analyse both the above mentioned sections it is evident in the case of Sec. 13 there is a positive action on the part of the landlord if he cut off or withheld any amenities enjoyed by the tenant. At the same time under Sec. 17 there is inaction on the part of the landlord in not carrying out periodical maintenance and necessary repairs to the building. Both the section deal with different situations. In the former there will be action on the part of the landlord with or without just or sufficient cause and the latter there will be inaction on the part of the landlord . Under Sec. 17(2) landlord cannot plead just and sufficient cause for his inaction at the same time under Sec. 13 landlord can plead just and sufficient cause for his action. 6. We may in this case examine whether removal of tiles from the roof of the building would amount to cutting off amenities. We are of the view if there is deliberate action by the landlord in removing tiles from the roof of the building that would have the effect of cutting off and withholding the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. By deliberate removal of tiles from the roof of the building it cannot be said that the tenant should move the Accommodation Controller under Sec. 17(2). Sec. 17(2) as we have already indicated deals with situation where there is no periodical maintenance and necessary repairs to the building or that the landlord failed to attend maintenance and repairs and the amenities thereto. However, in the case of removal of tiles from the roof of the building there has been a positive action by the landlord with the result tenant would not be in a position to enjoy the tenanted premises and the amenities attached to it. We cannot expect a tenant to go to a civil court and wait indefinitely seeking direction to the landlord replace the tiles. Therefore remedy available to the tenant is under sec. 13 itself and no Sec. 17. Contention was raised removal of tiles would not come within the expression 'amenities'. We cannot expect a tenant to go to a civil court and wait indefinitely seeking direction to the landlord replace the tiles. Therefore remedy available to the tenant is under sec. 13 itself and no Sec. 17. Contention was raised removal of tiles would not come within the expression 'amenities'. The word 'amenity' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as follows : "In real property law, such circumstances, in regard to situation, outlook, access to watercourse, or the like, as enhance the pleasantness or desirability of an estate for purposes of residence, or contribute to the pleasure and enjoyment of the occupants, rather than to their indispensable needs." In Murray's New English Dictionary 'amenity' is defined as follows : 1. The quality of being pleasant or agreeable; (a) of places, their situation, aspect, climate etc. We are not inclined to make fortress out of the dictionary meaning. We have to visualize the situation and the purpose and object of Sec. 13 of the Act. If few tiles are removed by the landlord deliberately that will amount to disruption of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant a well. We have already indicated that in AIR 1958 Mysore 77 (supra) it was held that a bath room is an amenity to a building as the bath room enhances the desirability of a house for the purpose of residence and contributes to the enjoyment of the occupant of the house. If a landlord tried to destroy a bathroom it is true that remedy open to the tenant is to move the civil court. At the same time if the bath room is an amenity tenant could also move the Accommodation controller under Sec. 13 as the bath room as rightly held in the above mentioned case would enhances the desirability of a house for the purpose of residence and contributes to the enjoyment of the occupant of the house. 7. We are therefore of the view sec. 17 deals with only in cases of periodical maintenance and repairs and not a case of deliberate withholding of amenities. We therefore hold that Accommodation Controller may in appropriate case direct the landlord to replace the tiles if removed, because there is deliberate action on the part of the landlord to see that the amenities enjoyed by the tenant is disrupted. We therefore hold that Accommodation Controller may in appropriate case direct the landlord to replace the tiles if removed, because there is deliberate action on the part of the landlord to see that the amenities enjoyed by the tenant is disrupted. We find in this case there is absolutely no evidence to show that the landlord had removed the tiles from the building. The tiles were broken in the natural course. Evidently tenant has to move the Accommodation Controller under Sec. 17 and not under Sec. 13. It is under such circumstance District collector took the view that in the absence of any evidence of positive action by the landlord tenant has to move the Accommodation Controller Under Sec. 17(2) of the Act. We are of the view District Collector is correct in his view. Consequently we are inclined to dismiss this writ petition. Tenant if so advised may work out his remedy.