Pius C. Kuriakose, J.@mdashUnder challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 (and 227) is Ext.P4 order passed by the Accommodation Controller. Ext.P4 is passed on an application u/s 17(2) of Act 2 of 1965, which was filed by the petitioner/tenant before the Accommodation Controller complaining that the respondent/landlord is not carrying out the periodical repairs and maintenance of the building in which the petitioner is the tenant. On a previous occasion when Ext.P2 order was passed by the Accommodation Controller determining that Rs. 25,000/- is the total amount to be expended for carrying out the repairs necessary, the landlord approached this Court. Significantly, the petitioner/tenant had no grievance about Ext.P2. This Court considering the challenge of the landlord, set aside Ext.P2 and passed Ext.P3. It is pursuant to Ext.P3, that the present order Ext.P4 is passed. Under Ext.P4, the Accommodation Controller has found that a substantial portion of the repairs, which the building needed, is already carried out and the total amount expended for carrying out such repairs is Rs. 18,000/-. The Accommodation Controller has further found that four more items of repairs are to be attended to and the total amount to be expended attending those repairs is Rs. 8,500/-. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that actually a sum of Rs.76,872/- will be required for carrying out all the requisite repairs. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even at the time when Ext.P2 was passed, the total amount to be expended for carrying out of necessary repairs would have come to so much of amount.
2. We are not impressed by the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. According to us, Ext.P2 was not challenged by the petitioner. Hence, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the amount to be expended for carrying out the requisite repairs is more than Rs. 25,000/-. Under the impugned order, the Accommodation Controller has ultimately found that the total amount to be expended for carrying out the requisite repairs will come to Rs. 26,500/-. It is the landlord, who should have been aggrieved by the impugned order. We do not find any justification for interfering with the impugned order and that too invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226.
The Writ Petition will stand dismissed.
