Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. We now turn to the provisions of the Act. To begin with, there is the definition of "structural repairs" in Section 2(s) which reads as follows:

'Structural repairs' means repairs or replacement of decayed, cracked, or out of plumb structural components of a building or any substantial part thereof or any part to which the occupiers have common access such as staircases, passages, water closets or privies by new ones of the like material or materials or of different material or materials including change in the mode of construction like converting load bearing wall type or timber framed structure to an R.C.C. one, or a combination of both, which repairs or replacement in the opinion of the Board, if not carried out expeditiously may result in the collapse of the building or any such part thereof; and 'structural repairs' includes repairs and replacement of all items which are required to be repaired or replaced as a consequence of the repairs or replacement aforesaid which are carried or to be carried out. When such repairs to any building or any part thereof are carried out by the Board, the building shall be deemed to be structurally repaired under this Act.

12. Section 58(2) deals with a contingency which might arise, when, while the repairs were being carried out, it became necessary to carry out structural repairs also. Where such structnra. repairs are required to be carried out, then the provisions of Section 58(2) tell us that the person who wants to carry out the structural repairs desires to be reimbursed to the extent of the cost of the structural repairs, then he has to obtain a previous sanction of the Board for such repairs. In other words, the scope of Section 58(2) is very limited inasmuch as it only deals with merely a right of reimbursement. It is only if the occupier desires to be reimbursed in respect of the cost of structural repairs, that a previous permission of the Board becomes necessary. It is necessary to point out that the reimbursement is not in respect of the entire cost of the repairs which the occupier is permitted to carry out under the provisions of Section 499 of the Municipal Corporation Act, but the reimbursement is only in respect of such structural repairs as are required to be carried out while the other repairs are being made. The latter part of Section 58(2) provides that the Board may give sanction on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit to impose. It is not obligatory upon the Board to give a sanction because Section 58(2) expressly provides that the Board may not agree to give sanction. Section 58(2) then provides that when the sanction is given, it shall be lawful for the Board to reimburse the cost of structural repairs actually carried out either in a lumpsnm or by instalments or even according to the progress of the work done from time to time as it may deem fit. The last part of Section 58(2) then creates a deeming fiction that a building, in respect of which the Board has reimbursed the cost of the structural repairs in full or when a period of three months elapses after the Board has reimbursed not less than seventy-five per cent of such cost, whichever is earlier, shall be deemed to be structurally repaired by the Board under the Act. The fiction appears to have become necessary because in fact the structural repairs are not carried out by the Board. They are carried out by the occupiers, but the cost either entirely or substantially, has been borne by the Board.

13. Now on a reading of Section 58(2), it is difficult to find anything therein which would enable the occupier to carry out the structural repairs if those repairs were not permitted under Section 499 of the Municipal Corporation Act. Indeed, as already pointed out, Section 58(2) is merely a provision with regard to reimbursement. It is not a provision empowering the occupier to carry out structural repairs. A person, who claims a right to carry out the structural repairs by virtue of the provision under Section 499 of the Municipal Corporation Act, must be able to show that the notice under Section 354 was such that structural repairs were directed to be carried out by the Corporation. It will be only then that there will be an occasion for carrying out the structural repairs in exercise of the right under Section 499. It is difficult to see how the definition of "structural repairs" in Section 2(s) of the Act can be of any assistance to the learned Counsel for the appellants. The definition in Section 2(s) merely defines "structural repairs". It does not create a right to carry out the structural repairs. Such a right is not to be found even in Section 58(2). There is no other provision in the Act which creates a right in favour of the occupiers to carry out the structural repairs on his own without the sanction of the appropriate authorities, because what is not disputed in the present case is that the appellants wanted to do something which the owners had neglected to do in spite of a notice under Section 354 of the Municipal Corporation Act. It is nobody's case that the notice under Section 354 required the owners to carry out any structural repairs in the nature of reconstruction of the building as is now contended.

...As to the meaning of the expression 'structural repairs' and the words 'substantial' snd 'structure', the judge made these observations which I am content to adopt. He said: 'It appears, rather surprisingly, that the expression 'structural repairs' has never been judicially defined, a fact to which attention is drawn in Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, 25th ed., p. 770, para. 1732, and counsel in the present case have accepted that statement as correct. The writer of the textbook submits on the same page that 'structural repairs' are those which involve interference with, or alteration to, the framework of the building, and I would myself say that 'structural repairs' means repairs of, or to, a structure. It is sometimes said that repairs must always be either structural or decorative, and if that is the simple criterion, we are in this case, certainly not dealing with decorative repairs.