Hari Krishan vs Dwarka Dass

D.K. Mahajan, J.—An interesting question has been raised in this petition for revision u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

On facts, there is no dispute. An application was made by the landlord for the eviction of the tenant on 27th of April, 1965. In the application, the landlord claimed that the tenant was in arrears of rent and house tax from the year 1961 to 1965. The tenant on the first hearing deposited a sum of Rs. 754/- as rent, Rs. 25/ as costs, Rs. 45/- as interest and Rs. 81.98 np as house tax for the years 1962 to 1964. Thus the position emerges that no house-tax was paid for the years 1961 and 1965-66. It is also not disputed that the house-tax was imposed for the first time with effect from 1st of July, 1961. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenant was liable to pay house-tax for the years 1961 and 1965-66 and as it had not been paid, the eviction of the tenant was ordered. On appeal by the tenant the Appellante Authority reversed the decision of the Rent Controller on the ground that the house-tax had been paid up to 31st of March, 1965 and regarding the year 1965-66, it was observed that "no increase in the monthly rent proportionate to the levy of house tax was made and consequently no ejectment for non-payment of house-tax for 1965-66 could be ordered." Against this decision, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

Mr. G.P. Jain, learned counsel for the landlord, contends that in the view of section 9 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, the house-tax becomes part of the rent automatically, whereas the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that it will only become part of the rent at the volition of the landlord. To determine the validity of the relevent contentions, it will be necessary to set out provisions of section 9 in extenso:

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act a landlord shall be entitled to increase the rent of a building or a rented land if after the commencement of this Act a fresh rate, cess or tax is levied in respect of the building or rented land by any local authority, or if there is an increase in the amount of such a rate, cess or tax being levied at the commencement of the Act:

Provided that the increase in rent shall not exceed the amount of any such rate, cess or tax or the amount of the increase in such rate, cess or tax, as the case may be.

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any contract, no landlord shall recover from his tenant the amount of any tax or any portion thereof in respect of any building or rented land occupied by such tenant by any increase in the amount of the rent payable or otherwise, save as provided in sub-section (1).

The relevant words of section 9 are "a landlord shall be entitled to increase the rent of a building or rented land if after the commencement of this Act a fresh rate, cess or tax is levied in respect of the building or rented land by any local authority, or if there is an increase in the amount of such a rate, cess or tax being levied at the commencement of the Act." It is common ground that before the 1st of July, 1961, no tax was levied in this municipal area. The tax was levied for the first time from 1st of July, 1961. This date is subsequent to the coming into force of the Act. Therefore, the landlord could increase the rent. For the first time, the landlord took steps to increase the rent on the 4th of June, 1964 when a written notice was served on the tenant to pay in addition to the rent the amount of tax at the rate of 71/2% of the rent. It is no doubt true that he claimed the house-tax retrospectively and the tenant has paid the tat retrospectively except for the year 1961. It is also common ground that while paying the rent in question, rent for a month which was not due has been paid i.e. a sum of Rs. 58/-. The house tax for one year is below this amount. As there was no notice to the tenant by the landlord that the rent was to be increased by reason of the house-tax, the tenant was under no obligation to pay the house-tax. This is implicit from the language of section 9. It is another matter that the tenant has voluntarily paid the arrears of house-tax; but in point of law he was only liable to house-tax after the notice on 4th of June, 1964 as increase in rent. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 58/- can be counter-balanced for the arrears of house-tax for the year 1965-66 and as there was no notice of increase for the year 1961, the arrears of house-tax cannot be taken notice of for purposes of ejectment u/s 9 because the rent must be deemed to be rent minus the permitted increase, as the rent in 1961 had not been increased on that basis. This will not, however, entitle the tenant to claim the house-tax paid prior to 1964-65 as an amount not legally due because the amount was legally due. But for purposes of eviction the landlord cannot take benefit of the non-payment of house-tax prior to 4th of June. 1964 and that is as already stated, abundantly clear from the provisions of section 9.

For the reasons recorded above, I see no ground to interfere in the order of the Rent Controller, though on different reasons than those which prevailed with him because I do not agree with his conclusion that the increase had not been effected after the notice. This petition thus fails and is dismissed; but there will be no order as to costs.