Smt. Sita Devi vs Chaman Lal and another

S.P. Goyal, J.—The shop in dispute was taken on lease by Respondent No 1, Chaman Lal from the Petitioner, Smt. Sita Devi, on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- for six months with effect from Phagan Badi 13, Sammat 2016 and rent for whole of the period was paid in advance. After the expiry of the lease period, the tenant continued to be in possession of the said shop because of the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The present petition was filed on October 20, 1978 for eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent from Poh Badi 14, 2029 BK till Assauj Badi 13, 2035 BK which period included the Laund month as well and another one with which we are no more concerned in this revision. Apart from the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1420/- it was also alleged that the tenant was liable to pay Rs. 51/- and Rs. 132/- on account of house tax and property tax respectively.

The tenant on the first data of hearing tendered Rs. 948.80 on the following counts:-

(1) Rs 720/- a arrears of rent for the preceding three years i.e. from Sept 1, 1975 to till the end of Aug. 1978.

(2) Rs. 40/- on account of costs.

(3) Rs. 88.80 at interest as assessed by the Rent Controller.

(4) Section 70.60 on account of property tax.

(5) Rs. 29.40 as house tax.

During the said period of three years there was a Laund month which means that in one year there were 13 months according to Bikrami era. The Petitioner, therefore, claimed that rent for 37 months should have been tendered and it being short by Rs. 20/- the tenant was liable to ejectment. Her plea was negative by the Rea Controller as well as the Appellate Authority which led to the filing of the present revision.

It is not disputed that after the expiry of the contractual period of tenancy, its terms and conditions continued to be the same as agreed to between the parties. Clause 4 of the Rent Note, Exhibit PA/1, provides that if there is a Laund month in any year of the tenancy, the tenant shall be liable to pay extra rent for that month. The Learned Counsel for the tenant contended that according to the second proviso to Sub-section (2) (i) of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 the landlord is not entitled to claim arrears: of rent for the period exceeding three years immediately preceding the date of the application. The word, ''year'' as provided in the General Clauses Act means the year reckoned according to British Calendar. Thus reckoned the tenant was liable to pay rent from September 1, 1975 till August 78 which has been tendered. However, I am unable to subscribe to this view. No doubt because of the aforesaid provisions, the arrears of rent for the period exceeding three years cannot be claimed and the period of three years is to be reckoned according to British Calendar. Once that period has been determined if there happens a Laund month during that period according to Bikrami era then extra rent for that period has to be paid because of the specific contract between the parties It is admitted that during the period of three years, from September 1975 to August 1978 there was a Laund month. The rent thus paid fell short of Rs. 20/- which rendered the tenant liable to ejectment.

Faced with this situation, the Learned Counsel for the tenant raised an alternative plea that as the amount of property tax and house-tax was not alleged to have been paid by the Petitioner, it could not be claimed from the tenant and the amount paid in this regard could be adjusted against the arrears of rent This argument as well has no merit There was a specific term of tenancy between the parties that whatever house-tax and property tax shall be imposed, the tenant would be liable to pay. The tenant never disputed that the property-tax and house-tax was payable as alleged in the petition. Teat apart, the tenant never raided a plea that he was not liable to pay the amount of property-tax and house-tax claimed in the petition as it had not been paid by the landlord. Instead, he readily tendered the amount of property-tax and house tax alleged to be due for the said period of three years in the absence of any plea by the tenant, the was no occasion for the landlord to lead any evidence that the property-tax and house tax had in fact been paid for the said period. It would not, therefore, be open for the tenant to raise such plea at the revisional stage.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition is accepted, the impugned order set aside and the ejectment order from the demised premises passed against the Respondent and in favour of the Petitioner. The tenant is allowed to vacate the shop in dispute within three months from the date of pronouncement of this order provided he deposits arrears of rent, if any, together with the rent for the said three months by the end of this month with the Rent Controller. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own coats.