CRP 273/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B. LOKUR The respondent Mohd. Mukhtar Ali claiming to be the owner and landlord of land measuring 12 lechas covered by Dag No.3975 and 3976 of P.P. No.924 and 9 25 of Mouza-Nagarmohal, Sivasagar Town P.O. & P.S. Sivasagar in the District of Sivasagar, rented out the property to the petitioner. According to the petitioner he has been in possession of the property si nce 1993 and it is being used as a godown. According to the petitioner, the suit property is in a low lying area an d as a result, it needed some repairs. Since the respondent was not carrying out those repairs, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 6 and Section 7 of the Urban Areas Rent Control Act for a direction to the respondent to carry out the necessary repairs in the suit property. In the petition filed by the petitioner, a final order was passed on 21. 6.2010 by the learned Munsiff No.1, Sibsagar directing Mohd. Mukhtar Ali to make the necessary repairs and earth filling in the suit property as it had suffered artificial floods. It was also directed that in case Mohd. Mukhtar Ali fails to carry out the necessary repairs within two months, the petitioner may make the necessary repairs at his own cost and adjust the expenses with the rent of the s uit premises. Against the order dated 21.6.2010 passed by the Munsiff No.1 at Sivasaga r, one Shri Narayan Singh filed a Miscellaneous Appeal No.11 of 2010. According to learned counsel, it was claimed in that appeal that Shri Narayan Singh had pu rchased the suit property from Mohd. Mukhtar Ali and, therefore, he is the owner and landlord of the suit property. The miscellaneous appeal filed by Shri Narayan Singh was rejected by the learned Civil Judge on the ground that Shri Narayan Singh failed to prove the r elationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner. Thereafter, Mohd. Mukhtar Ali filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.14 of 2010 b efore the Civil Judge, Sivasagar challenging the order dated 21.6.2010 and subse quent orders connected therewith. The learned Civil Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 21.6.2010 and the subsequent orders by the impugned j udgment and order dated 17th June, 2011. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition. Learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of Md. Mukhtar Ali, who learned counsel says that is the original owner of the suit property. It is sub mitted on his behalf by learned counsel that he is no longer the owner and landl ord of the suit property and, therefore, he has no connection therewith. The onl y reason for filing the miscellaneous appeal is the direction given by the Munsi ff No.1, Sivasagar on 21.6.2010 requiring Md. Mukhtar Ali to repair the suit pro perty. It is already mentioned above that the learned Munsiff had directed Mohd . Mukhtar Ali to make the necessary repairs and earth filling in the suit proper ty, failing which the petitioner could carry out the necessary repairs at his co st and adjust the same with the rent payable to Md. Mukhtar Ali. Since Md. Mukhtar Ali is no longer interested in the suit property, he i s under no obligation to repair it. The petitioner may, therefore, carry out the repairs at his own cost. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that he is not interested in adj usting the cost of repairs with the rent on the property. This is of course enti rely for the petitioner to decide, but it is placed on record that Md. Mukhtar A li, as submitted by learned counsel, is no longer the owner and landlord of the suit property. That being the position, the order dated 17th June, 2011 passed by the C ivil Judge, Sivasagar in favour of Mohd. Mukhtar Ali in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 14 of 2010 is required to be set aside and it is, accordingly, set aside. The revision petition is allowed. The parties will bear their own costs.