JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant-respondent from House No. 118 situate in Cantonments, Meerut, for recovery of Rs. 182.00 P. as arrears of rent, Rs. 9.06 as meter rent and Rs. 25.06p as Bhumi Bhawan Kar. There was also a claim for damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 1.00 per day till delivery of possession of the house in suit to the plaintiff-appellant. 2. The plaintiff claiming to be the landlord of the house in suit asserted that the defendant was the tenant there of on a monthly rent of Rs. 20.00, the tenancy started from the first day of each English calendar month ending on the last day. It was claimed that the defendant was liable to pay a further sum of Rs. 1.00 per month as meter rent and a similar amount per month as Bhumi Bhawan Kar from the 1st July, 1962. It was pleaded that a notice of demand and judgment dated 30th June, 1964 was sent to the defendant but he failed to pay the arrears of rent, meter rent and Bhumi Bhawan Kar and also to vacate the premises demised and hence the suit. Ejectment of the respondent was claimed on the allegation that inspite of the service of notice of demand as contemplated by Section 14(1) of the U.P. Cantonments (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1952 (Act No. X of 1952) - hereinafter referred to as the Act - the respondent wilfully made default in payment of the arrears of rent within one month of the service of the notice upon him. 3. The suit was contested on the pleas that there had been no wilful default on the part of the defendant as the plaintiff had been continuously refusing to accept the rent remitted through money-orders to him; that the notice of ejectment and demand was not served on the defendant and in any case it was invalid. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff was not entitled to the meter rent and that a sum of Rs. 16.50p had been spent by him in the repairs of the hand-pump which he was entitled to adjust against the plaintiff's claim. 4. On the pleadings of the parties various issues were framed by the trial Court. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff was not entitled to the meter rent and that a sum of Rs. 16.50p had been spent by him in the repairs of the hand-pump which he was entitled to adjust against the plaintiff's claim. 4. On the pleadings of the parties various issues were framed by the trial Court. On a consideration of the evidence on record the trial Court came to the conclusion that the notice of demand and to quit was not served on the defendant; that he had not made wilful default in the payment of arrears of rent; that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover meter rent and further; that the defendant was entitled to adjust a sum of Rs. 16.50 spent by him on repairs of the hand-pump. In consequence of the findings recorded the plaintiff's suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 185.56p was decreed after deducting Rs. 16.60p as claimed by the defendant. The claim for ejectment of the defendant from the premises in suit was however, dismissed. On appeal by the plaintiff the Court below held that a composite notice of demand and to quit was tendered to the respondent but he refused to accept the same; that the money orders tendering the rent had been refused by the plaintiff without any jurisdiction and the defendant was not a wilful defaulter in the payment of rent. The claim of the plaintiff that he was entitled to recover Bhumi Bhawan Kar from the defendant was not disputed. The lower Appellate Court, however, held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the meter rent claimed by him and the defendant was entitled to adjust Rs. 16.50 spent by him in the repairs of the water-pump. The appeal was dismissed with costs and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were upheld. Aggrieved by the decree of the Court below, the plaintiff has appealed to this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged only one point in support of this appeal. He submitted that the Court below having found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover Bhumi Bhawan Kar from the defendant and the latter not having remitted the amount of the Bhumi Bhawan Kar due along with the rent, the plaintiff was legally justified in refusing to accept the money-orders remitted to him. He submitted that the Court below having found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover Bhumi Bhawan Kar from the defendant and the latter not having remitted the amount of the Bhumi Bhawan Kar due along with the rent, the plaintiff was legally justified in refusing to accept the money-orders remitted to him. It was submitted that in this view of the matter the Court below acted illegally in holding that the plaintiff had unjustifiably refused to accept the money orders remitted to him and that defendant was not a wilful defaulter in payment of the arrears of rent. In short the submission was that the rent includes the Bhumi Bhawan Kar which the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant. There is in my opinion, no substance in this contention. It is true that under Section 5 sub-section (1) of the Uttar Pradesh (Nagar Kshettra) Bhumi Bhawan Kar Adhinyam 1962 (U.P. Act No. XII of 1962) Bhumi Bhawan Kar payable in any year in respect of any land or building or part thereof, where the owner himself is not the occupier of the same, is recoverable by the number of day during the year for which such land or building in the same proportion as the number of days during the year for which such land or building or portion thereof as the case may be, has been in actual occupation or use of such occupier bears to the figure 365, but sub-section (2) of that provision makes it abundantly clear that the tax recoverable from the occupier does not acquire the character of rent. Section 5 sub-section (2) runs as follows; "The tax payable under sub-section (1) may be recovered by the owner from the occupier along with the rent or damages for use and occupation of the land or building, as the case may be, or otherwise." This provision leaves no room for doubt that though the tax is recoverable from the occupier along with the rent it does not become rent, as such. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 itself contemplates a distinction between the tax payable under sub-section (1) of Section 5 and the rent recoverable from the tenant. An examination of the various provisions of the Act also leads to a similar conclusion. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 itself contemplates a distinction between the tax payable under sub-section (1) of Section 5 and the rent recoverable from the tenant. An examination of the various provisions of the Act also leads to a similar conclusion. Section 3(g) of the Act is as follows : "Reasonable annual rent" means :- (1) in the case of accommodation constructed before the 1st day of October, 1946,- (i) if it is separately assessed to municipal assessment, its municipal assessment plus twenty-five per cent thereon : (ii) if it is a part only of the accommodation so assessed, the proportionate amount of the municipal assessment of such accommodation plus twenty-five per cent thereon; (iii) if it is not assessed to municipal assessment- (a) if it was held by a tenant on rent between the 1st day of the April, 1942, and the 30th day of September, 1946, fifteen times the rent for the one month nearest to and after the 1st day of April, 1942, and (b) if it was not so held on rent, the amount determined under Section 7; and (2) in the case of accommodation constructed on or after the 1st day of October, 1946, the rent determined in accordance with Section 7." Thus the tax payable under the U.P. (Nagar Kshettra) Bhumi Aur Bhawan Kar Adhiniyam, 1962, is not a relevant consideration at all for the purpose of determination of the 'reasonable annual rent'. Section 4(1) of the Act is to the effect that 'except as hereinafter in this section provided, the rent payable for any accommodation shall be such as may be agreed upon between the landlords and the tenant'. Thus rent primarily means the amount agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 provides that : "Where the rent for any accommodation has not been agreed upon, or where in the case of tenancies continuing from any date before the 1st day of October, 1946, the landlord wishes to enhance the rent agreed upon, he may, be notice in writing, fix the annual rent at, or enhance it to an amount not exceeding, the reasonable annual rent : Provided that the enhanced rent shall not exceed the rent, if any, payable on the 1st of October, 1946, by more than fifty per cent thereof : 6. Provided further that nothing in this section shall entire the landlord to enhance the rent in the case of leases for a fixed term during the continuance of the term unless so permitted by the contract of tenancy. Thus rent is the amount agreed to be paid by the tenant to the landlord or the amount determined as 'reasonable annual rent' in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Bhumi Bhawan Kar' is a tax payable to the local body concerned and is not a payment for the benefit of the landlord at all. In my judgment though 'Bhumi Bhawan Kar, is recoverable from the tenant along with the rent, it is not recoverable as rent and consequently when the defendant-respondent remitted the rent without remitting the Bhumi Bhawan Kar recoverable by the landlord and he failed to accept the same, the tenant committed no wilful default in payment of arrears of rent. The plaintiff certainly was entitled to a decree for the recovery of Bhumi Bhawan Kar from the respondent, but he could not claim his ejectment on the ground of his having committed wilful default in payment of rent as contemplated by Section 14 of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that in some decisions of this Court the view had been taken that the tax recoverable under the U.P. (Nagar Kshettra) Bhumi Aur Bhawan Kar Adhiniyam became merged in rent and acquired the character of rent, but no such decision was cited before me. 7. There is, in my opinion, no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs. Interim order, if any, is vacated.