Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The only question, therefore, is whether, having regard to the terms of the covenant, it could be said that the tenant had undertaken to bear the cost of repairs within the meaning and for purposes of Section 24(1)(i)(b) of the Act. The covenant in this behalf in the lease deed dated 9.9.1952 is in terms following:

"To maintain and keep the demised premises in good and habitable condition, tenantable, repair execute all repairs including annual white washing, repairs of electric and sanitary fittings etc., at the lessee's expenses. Major repairs such as repairs against collapse of the house etc., shall be undertaken by the lessors at their own cost."

The view of the High Court, in substance, is that this covenant satisfies the requirements of and attracts Section 24(1)(i)(b) . The correctness of this view turns upon what in the law of landlord and tenant is, the content of a covenant for 'repairs' and whether by the terms of the present agreement, the tenant is said to have undertaken the burden of such 'repairs'.

Referring to what is implicit in and carried with the covenant for "repairs", Halsbury states:

"Under a covenant to repair, a tenant is liable to repair but not to renew. 'Repair' in this sense means the restoration by renewal or replacement of subsidiary parts of the whole, whereas 'renewal' as distinguished from repair, means the re- construction of the whole or of substantially the whole. Where the demised building is erected on in-herently defective foundations, the tenant is not liable to substitute new foundations .. "

(See Halsbury's Laws of England 14th Edn. paragraph 285) In regard to the Standard of Repairs, Halsbury, at paragraph 286, states:

"If he has expressly covenanted to put a house into tenantable repair and to keep it in such repair, and it is not in tenantable repair at the commencement of the tenancy, the tenant must do the necessary repairs, not with standing that the building is thereby put in a better condition than when the landlord let it. The effect is the same if, without expressly covenanting to put it into repair, the tenant only covenants to keep the house in tenantable repair. Such a covenant presupposes putting the house in such repair, and keeping it in repair during the term. The construction of the covenant is the same whether the covenant specifies 'tenantable' or 'habitable' or 'good' repair. A general covenant to repair without any such words is satisfied if the premises are kept in a substantial state of repair.
"It seems to me that we should be narrowing in a most dangerous way the limit and extent of these covenants if we did not hold that the defendants were liable under covenants framed as these are to make good the cost of repairing this wall in the only sense in which it can be repaired, namely, by re-building it according to the requirements of the county council."

Having regard to somewhat comprehensive nature of the obligations that go with and are attached to and recognised under the tenant's covenants for 'repairs', it must be held that the covenant in the present case is one under which the tenant has undertaken 'substantial repairs' and it must, accordingly, be held to fall within Section 24(1)(i)(b) of the Act and that the allowance for repairs must be one under, and limited to, that provision. The case of the assessee that it should fall under Section 24(1)(i)(a), we are afraid, is very nearly unarguable. There is no substance in the contention.