Hari Ram Jaggi vs Des Raj Sethi

Falshaw, C.J.—The only question in this revision petition filed by a landlord under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is whether the tenant properly complied with the proviso contained in section 13(2)(b) of the Act and so saved himself from ejectment on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent.

The relevant facts are that the house in suit was taken on lease by the tenant from the landlord by the rent deed P. 1 in which it was specified that the rent of the house was Rs. 25.00 p.m. and that the tenant would also pay Rs. 1.25 P. monthly as electricity and water charges. At the first hearing before the learned Rent Controller the tenant deposited the arrears of rent due only at the rate of Rs. 25.00 together with costs and interest and the learned Rent Controller found that this was not proper compliance of the terms of the proviso since Rs. 1.25 p. payable on account of electricity and water charges also formed part of the rent. In reaching this conclusion he took notice of the fact that on a previous occasion when the landlord had instituted an ejectment petition on the basis of arrears of rent the tenant had been careful enough to deposit the amount due at the rate of (Rs. 26.25) p. m.

In appeal, however, the learned Appellate Authority held to the contrary and took the view that Rs. 1.25 p. did not constitute part of the rent and he relied on the decision of Ramaswami J. in S.E. Abdul Ghafoor Sahib Vs. A.M. Abdul Salam Sahib and Others, . This decision was given in a case regarding the fixation of fair rent, the facts being that certain shops were taken on lease by tenants from the landlord at a time when they were not fitted for the consumption of electricity, and some time later at the instance of the tenants electrical fittings were installed under an agreement that an extra rent of nine annns per day would be payable for the use of the electricity fittings and the current consumed, and it was held that the rent does not include charges for electricity by the landlord. On the other hand reliance was placed on the decision in Karnani Properties Ltd. Vs. Augustin, S.C. 309 in which it was held that the term ''rent'' had not been defined in the Act (in that case the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act and hence it must be taken to have been used in its ordinary dictionary meaning and the term ''rent'' is comprehensive enough to include all payments agreed by the tenant to be paid to his landlord for the use and occupation not only of the building and its appurtenances, but also of furnishings, electric installations and other amenities agreed between the paries to be provided by and at the cost of the landlord. In that case apparently there was a fixed charge for rent, but it specifically included the charges for certain electric fans installed in the premises. The decision was to some extent based on the English case Properly Holding Co. Ltd v. Clark (1948) 1 All. E, R, 165 in which a flat was let to a tenant, for a ''rent'' (so designated) of � 110 a year and an ''additional payment'' of � 30 a year in consideration of which additional payment the landlord covenanted to provide, for the use of the tenant. a gas cooker and certain other articles which would normally be tenant''s fixures or fittings, and for the furnishing, lighting etc. of those parts of the building the use of which the tenant had in common with the tenants of other flats in the building. It was held by the Court of Appeal that the sum of � 30 was also part of the ''rent'' within the meaning of sub-section (1)(a) of section 12 of the Rent Restriction Act.

This case is clearly distinguishable from the Madras case in which the additional charge of nine annas per day was imposed for the use of electric fittings and for the current consumed every day, whereas in the present case Rs 1.25 p.p.m. is charged both presumably for the rent of electric fittings and for water charges. In my opinion the tenant acted very foolishly, particularly after the attitude he had adopted in the previous petition of the landlord, in depositing the rent only at Rs 25.00 p.m. since I consider that Rs. 1.25 p. which he had to pay to the landlord monthly in addition to Rs. 25.00 was also part of the rent. I therefore hold that the matter was correctly decided by the learned Rent Controller and accepting the revision petition, I restore the order of the learned Rent Controller for the ejectment of the tenant, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.