JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri Neeraj Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner. No one appears for the respondents. 2. The petitioner-landlord filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant-respondents and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. Prior to filing of the suit the landlord terminated the tenancy on 7.1.1978, by a composite notice demanding rent from 1.6.1976 to 31.12.1977 amounting to Rs. 1900/- @ Rs. 100/- per month. The tenant neither vacated the accommodation nor paid the rent, given rise to the suit. 3. In the written statement the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had broken the three ballies supporting the roof of tin shed and broken the wall in the year 1976. In protest the defendant served a notice on the plaintiff and restored the roof and ballies and in doing so he incurred expenses of Rs. 3970/- which he is entitled to adjust in the rent. In his statement the tenant stated that he had given a notice to the landlord to put the roof but when the plaintiff-landlord did not do so even after notice dated 16.8.1976 within the stipulated time under Section 28 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1973 he had to incur expenses for putting the tin shed. He filed receipts for purchase of bricks and payment of labour charges. The trial court held that the plaintiff had removed the roof of the building and in the circumstances the tenant was entitled to replace the roof. Further, in such circumstances, the tenant was entitled to adjust the amount for which he had tendered the accounts. 4. The petitioner-landlord filed SCC Revision No. 52 of 1997 which was dismissed, rejecting the submission that for adjusting more than two months rent a notice is required to be given and thereafter the permission of the Prescribed Authority has to be taken under Section 28 (4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act). The tenant had no option but to reconstruct the roof and had given the account of the expenses which were found to be reasonable by both the Prescribed Authority and Revisional Court. 5. Chapter-V of the Act provides for regulation of other rights and obligations of landlord and tenant. Section 25 provides for prohibition of sub-letting. Section 26 creates certain obligation of the landlord and tenant. 5. Chapter-V of the Act provides for regulation of other rights and obligations of landlord and tenant. Section 25 provides for prohibition of sub-letting. Section 26 creates certain obligation of the landlord and tenant. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Act provides that the landlord shall not without lawful authority on excuse, cut off, withhold or reduce any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. Sub-section (2) obliges him to keep the building under tenancy wind-proof and waterproof and, subject to any contract in writing to the contract in writing to the contrary carry out periodical white-washing and repairs. The tenant shall not under sub-section (3) whether during the continuance of the tenancy or after its determination demolish any improvement effected by him in the building or remove any material used in such improvement, other than any fixtures of a movable nature. 6. Sections 27 and 28 of the Act provides for enforcement of landlord’s obligation regarding amenities and repairs respectively. On an application of tenant under Section 27 (1) a notice may require him, within such period, not exceeding one week, to restore any amenity alleged to have been cut off, withheld or reduced. If the landlord fails to restore the amenity within the period under the notice to show sufficient cause, the prescribed authority may by order permit the tenant to have the amenity restored at his cost and thereupon the tenant shall be entitled to recover such cost by deduction from the rent payable to the landlord, after furnishing to him the account of the expenditure. If the landlord fails to carry out white-washing or repairs under sub section (1) of Section 28 the tenant may call upon him to carry out the same within one month from the date of service of such notice. If the requisite cost of white-washing or repairs is likely to exceed two month’s rent in a year the tenant in his notice shall also intimate to the landlord under sub-section (2) to the landlord his willingness to pay enhanced rent accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. The tenant may himself carry out the white-washing or repairs at a cost not exceeding two month’s 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. The tenant may himself carry out the white-washing or repairs at a cost not exceeding two month’s 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. Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Act provides that where the building is required white-washing or repairs to such extent that the cost thereof is likely to exceed two months amount in a year, referred to as “major repairs” and landlord may either decline his responsibility to carry out the same and if fails to comply with the notice, the tenant may apply to the prescribed authority for an order under sub-section (5) under which the prescribed authority on receiving an application under sub-section (4) may after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties either reject the application or 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 not be more than the amount of two years rent and within such period as may be specified in the order. Sub section (6) of Section 28 provides that the tenant will be required to furnish the account of the expenditure incurred in the major repairs under sub section (5) and that the prescribed authority shall certify the amount. Section 28-A provides for alteration and improvement not to be made by sub tenant and Section 28-B provides tenant’s right to get water connection and sanitary fittings installed. 7. Section 29 of the Act reads as follows : “29. Special protection to tenants of buildings destroyed by collective disturbances, etc.—(1) Where in consequence of the commission of mischief or any other offence in the course of collective disturbances, any building under tenancy is wholly or partly destroyed the tenant shall have the right to re-erect it wholly or partly, as the case may be, at his own expense within a period of six months from such injury : Provided that if such injury was occasioned by the wrongful act or default of the tenant he shall not be entitled to avail himself of the benefit of this provision. (2) Where in consequence of fire, tempest, flood of excessive rainfall, any building under tenancy is wholly or partly destroyed the tenant shall have the right to re-erect or repair it wholly or partly, as the case may be, at his own expense after giving a notice in writing to the landlord within a period of one month from such injury : Provided that the tenant shall not be entitled to avail himself of the benefit of this provision, - (a) if such injury was occasioned by his own wrongful act or default; or (b) in respect of any re-erection of repair made before he has given a notice as aforesaid to the landlord or before the expiration of a period of fifteen days after such notice, or if the landlord in the meantime makes an application under Section 21, before the disposal of such application; or (c) in respect of any re-erection or repair made after the expiration of a period of six months from such injury or, if the landlord has made any application as aforesaid, from the disposal thereof. (3) Where the tenant, before the commencement of this Act, has made any re-erection or repair in exercise of his rights under Section 19 of the old Act, or after the commencement of this Act makes any re-erection in the exercise of his right under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), - (a) the property so re-erected or repaired shall be comprised in the tenancy; (b) the tenant shall not be entitled, whether during the tenancy or after its determination, to demolish the property or parts so erected or repaired or to remove any material used therein other than any fixtures of a movable nature; (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of Section 2, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the buildings so re-erected : Provided that no application shall be maintainable under Section 21, in respect of any such building on the ground mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1) thereof within a period of three years from the completion of such re-erection.” 8. In the case of ‘mischief by landlord Section 29 (1) of the Act authorises the tenant to re-erect building either wholly or partly at his own expenses within six months from such injury. In the case of ‘mischief by landlord Section 29 (1) of the Act authorises the tenant to re-erect building either wholly or partly at his own expenses within six months from such injury. The proviso to Section 29 (1) provides that if such injury is occasioned by the wrongful act or default of the tenant he shall not be entitled to benefit of the provisions. It may be noticed that in case of mischief or any other offences in the course of collective disturbance the tenant is entitled to re-erect the building either wholly or partly as the case may be at his own expenses. Section 29 however does not provide for adjustment of expenses incurred by the tenant from the rent. The Section-29 however does not talk of any notice where the mischief is caused by any stranger or any collective disturbance. In such event the tenant has a right to recover the loss caused to him in re-erecting the building and repairing the building from such person. If however it is found that such a mischief is caused by the landlord the obligation under Section 26 (1) and (2) will come into operation. The landlord in such case could not only be liable of criminal liability under Section 31 of the Act and invite the punishment of conviction which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 5000/- after a report was made in this regard and the concerned Magistrate take cognizance under Section 33, he will also be liable to incur expenses under Section 27 to provide the amenity within the period provided by the prescribed authority. 9. The liability under Section 29 however is by way of special protection to the tenant. The obligation of the landlord towards the tenant, in case an element of criminality, where the landlord by mischief wholly or partly destroys the building. In such case the special protection given to the tenant will come into operation and that the tenant will be entitled to re-erect the building wholly or partly; at his own expenses and to adjust the rent under Section 28 (4) without taking proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. In such case the tenant will have to give the account and establish that he had incurred reasonable expenses in re-erecting the building either wholly or partly. In such case the tenant will have to give the account and establish that he had incurred reasonable expenses in re-erecting the building either wholly or partly. A combined reading of Sections 26 to 29 would show that in case of element of criminality by way of mischief the tenant has been given special protection. Such protection would be meaningless unless he is allowed to claim or adjust the amount from the rent payable by him to the landlord. In such cases the Court may only, in case of action of adjustment in payment of rent, insist upon the tenant to give the accounts of such reasonable expenses. 10. In the present case a clear findings is recorded by the trial court that the landlord had removed the roof. The tenant could have taken proceedings to prosecute the landlord. The failure of the tenant to take such proceedings would not dis-entitle him to incur reasonable expenses to restore the amenity and to make the building wind-proof and water-proof. In such case the tenant had a right to re-erect the building wholly or partly and to adjust the amount from the rent after giving the accounts of expenditure. Both the courts below found that the tenant has given the account to purchase of bricks, tin-shed and ballies and payment of labour charges. The tenant as such was rightly held entitled to adjust the cost of restoration of roop of Rs. 3970/-. With this adjustment the tenant could be treated to be in default of rent. These findings in my opinion are findings of fact, which has been arrived at by correctly interpretating the provisions of the UP Act No. XIII of 1972. Even otherwise in equity the Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the landlord. 11. Shri Neeraj Agarwal states that the tenant has not paid the rent to the landlord since after the filing of the writ petition. This judgment will not affect the landlord’s right to recover the rent from the tenant or any statutory liability on account of such defaults in accordance with the law. 12. The writ petition is dismissed. ————