Union of India vs Subash Chander and Others

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This revision petition by the Union of India, the Petitioner, is directed against the judgment dated 23.8.1979(sic) passed by the learned Appellate Authority u/s 15(4) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ''the Act''), whereby the appeal of the Petitioner against the judgment of the Rent Controller ordering its eviction from the premises in dispute has been dismissed and the order of eviction has been upheld.

Since the year 1932 there is a post office in the premises in dispute and the Petitioner Las been paying Rs. 25/- per month as rent for the said premises to the landlord-Respondents. The relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties is admitted. The Respondents sought ejectment of the Petitioner by filing an application u/s 13 of the Act on the ground that it had neither paid nor tendered rent along with house-tax for the period from 1.9.1974 to 31.10.1976. On the first date of hearing before the learned Rent Controller the Petitioner tendered the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month amounting to Rs. 650/- along with interest and costs but disputed its liability to pay the amount of house-tax After discussing the evidence brought on the record, the learned Rent Controller held that the Petitioner was liable to pay house-tax amounting to Rs. 42.70 for the period in question and since the same had not been tendered along with the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing, the tender of rent made was held to be invalid and its eviction from the premises was ordered. As already mentioned above, an appeal against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller filed by the Petitioner before the learned Appellate Authority failed and this is how the present revision petition by it has been filed in this Court.

After hearing the learned Counsel and having gone through the record of the learned Rent Controller, I find that no ground has been made out for interference with the concurrent finding recorded the authorities below. Kartar Singh Tax Inspector A. W. 1 deposed that the Municipal Committee levied house-tax with effect from 1.1.1962 and the building in dispute was also assessed to house-tax. He proved on record copies of house-tax assessment Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 pertaining to the premises in dispute relating to the years 1974-75 and 1975-76. Section 8 of the Act, inter-alia, lays down that a landlord shall be entitled to increase the rent of a building if after the commencement of the tenancy a fresh rate, cess or tax is levied in respect of the building by any local authority or if there is an increase in the amount or such a rate, cess or tax being levied at the commencement of the Act. Such increase in rent shall be payable by the tenant from the date of dispatch of the written notice of demand sent by the landlord under registered cover. The Respondents have proved on the record a notice Ex. PX making a demand of increase in rent on levy of house-tax. It was dispatched to the Petitioner on 16.9.1974. Its postal and acknowledgement-due receipts have also been proved on the record as Exs. P.4 and P 2 respectively. Thus, it is beyond dispute that the Petitioner was liable to make payment of rent increased by the amount of house-tax but it failed to make payment of the amount representing house tax, viz. Rs. 42.70, as rightly found by the learned Rent Controller.

It is now beyond the pale of any controversy that the amount of house-tax, where the tenant is liable to pay the same, is not tendered along with the arrears of rent, the tenant renders himself liable to ejectment u/s 13 of the Act. In a case like the present one, the amount of house-tax shall be treated as an integral part of rent because in view of the language of Section 8 ibid such an amount of tax when demanded by the landlord in accordance with the said provisions shall amount to "increase in rent". The learned Counsel for the Respondents placed reliance on Gita Devi v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, and others I. L. R. 1983 (2) P&H. 511. and Sunder Lal and Ors. v. Mst. Dulari and Ors. (1979) 81 P. L. R. 117., wherein the same view as I have taken was upheld.

There is, therefore, no merit in the present revision petition which is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

At the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, three months'' time is allowed to the Petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute on the condition that it deposits the entire amount of arrears of rent along with future rent for three months within one month from today in the Court of the Rent Controller for payment to the landlord Respondents. On its failure to do so, the Respondents shall be entitled to take out execution and take possession of the demised premises forthwith.