Tenant Permitted to Carry Out Essential Repairs at Own Cost Subject to Future Final Adjudication

The petitioner, a tenant in a property owned by the respondents, sought to carry out repairs to the rented premises.

The Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad, vide order dated 20.04.2026 below Exhibit 64 in HRP No. 194 of 2022, denied the petitioner's request for undertaking such repairs.

The respondent-landlord contended that while the rental agreement burdened the tenant with repair obligations, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation had issued a notice suggesting parts of the building be pulled down rather than repaired.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the trial court’s refusal.

1. Whether the tenant should be permitted to undertake necessary repairs of the rented premises at their own cost during the pendency of the suit.

2. Whether the landlord can validly object to repairs when the municipal notice suggests only partial demolition and the tenant is willing to bear the immediate expenses.

The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The court applied the principle of maintaining the status and habitability of the tenanted premises, noting that contractual obligations for repair may shift between parties based on the rental agreement.

The court also considered the "interest of the parties" to prevent property dilapidation, especially in light of seasonal risks such as the monsoon.

The Court observed that the respondents’ own defense—that the rental agreement cast a duty of repair upon the tenant—contradicted their objection to the petitioner performing those repairs.

Upon perusing the Municipal Corporation's notice, the Court found that only a portion of the premises was marked for removal, while the remainder required repair rather than total demolition.

The Court reasoned that permitting repairs without creating new permanent structures would protect the property from further damage during the monsoon.

To balance equities, the Court directed the tenant to bear the initial costs, while reserving their right to claim reimbursement or set-off against future rent depending on the trial court's final determination of liability.

The Court held that the petitioner-tenant is permitted to carry out repairs (excluding new permanent constructions) at their own cost.

The expenditure is to be borne by the tenant initially, with liberty to claim it from the landlord against future rent liabilities, and the Trial Court was directed to frame a specific issue regarding the liability for repairs.

Rule was made absolute to this extent.