JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan, J. - This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, Bhoomi Bhawan Kar, damages for use and occupation and ejectment from the premises in suit. 2. The plaintiff alleged that the appellant was a tenant of the ground floor of house No. 110/164, Mohalla Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur, at a rent of Rs. 35/- per month, of which she was the land lady. The defendant according to the plaintiff was in arrears of rent for the period from March to July, 1964 and as such a notice was served on him making a demand of rent and terminating his tenancy. The notice was served on the defendant appellant on 27th August, 1964. In response to the notice the appellant wrote back that he was in arrears of rent only for one month. The plaintiff consequently filed the suit giving rise to this appeal for ejectment of the defendant appellant and claiming Rs. 240/- on account of arrears of rent for the period Ist March, 1964 to 26th September, 1964, Rs. 253.75 on account of damages for use and occupation for the period 27th September, 1964 to 3rd May, 1965 and Rs. 70.70 on account of Bhoomi Bhawan Kar for the period Ist July, 1962 to 3rd May, 1965. 3. The suit was resisted on a number of pleas. It was claimed by the defendant that the constructions were per 1951 and consequently were subject to the provisions of U. P. Act III of 1947. It was pleaded that the appellant was not in default in payment of rent. According to the appellant he had paid a huge amount on account of taxes due to the Mahapalika in respect of the premises in dispute, from the plaintiff respondent and if the same were taken into consideration he was not a defaulter in payment of rent. The defendant denied his liability to pay Bhoomi Bhawan Kar. 4. The trial court held that the constructions in dispute were pre 1951 and the provisions of U. P. Act III of 1947 applied thereon. It was found by the trial court that the defendant had tendered only a part of the rent due from him and, therefore, committed default in payment of rent within the meaning of Section 3(1)(a) of U. P. Act III of 1947. It was found by the trial court that the defendant had tendered only a part of the rent due from him and, therefore, committed default in payment of rent within the meaning of Section 3(1)(a) of U. P. Act III of 1947. The defendant was held liable to pay Bhoomi Bhawan Kar. On the findings recorded the learned Munsif who tried the suit, decreed the plaintiff's claim for ejectment, for recovery of Rs. 130 as arrears of rent for the period Ist March 1964 to 26th September, 1964, Rs. 253.75 as damages for use and occupation for the period 27th September, 1964 to 3rd May, 1965 and Rs. 70.70 as Bhoomi Bhawan Kar for the period from 1st July, 1962 to 3rd May, 1965. pendent elite and further damages till the date of eviction at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month was also decreed on payment of necessary court fee. 5. The defendant appealed against the decree of the trial court. The lower appellate court held that the defendant was entitled to claim adjustment of Rs. 110/-, which he had paid on account of taxes due to the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur in respect of the premises under his tenancy, out of the rent payable by him to the plaintiff. It was found that after adjustment of the taxes paid to the Mahapalika the defendant was liable to pay to his land lady a sum of Rs. 65/- when notice of demand was served on him. The defendant's claim that on receipt of notice of demand he had remitted by money order a sum of Rs. 32.50 to the plaintiff was found not to have been proved. It was held that since a sum of Rs. 65/- was due on account of arrears of rent at the time when the notice of demand was served on the appellant, assuming that he had remitted by money order a sum of Rs. 32.50 he was still a defaulter within the meaning of Section 3(1)(a) of U. P. Act III of 1947. The lower appellate court held that for the period 1st July, 1962 to 3rd May, 1965 a sum of Rs. 59.50 was payable by the appellant on account of Bhoomi Bhawan Kar. The decree passed by the trial court in respect of the amount payable as Bhoomi Bhawan Kar was consequently modified. 6. The lower appellate court held that for the period 1st July, 1962 to 3rd May, 1965 a sum of Rs. 59.50 was payable by the appellant on account of Bhoomi Bhawan Kar. The decree passed by the trial court in respect of the amount payable as Bhoomi Bhawan Kar was consequently modified. 6. In the result the lower appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the defendant in part. The decree passed by the trial court for ejectment of the appellant and for recovery of Rs. 130/- on account of arrears of rent for the period 1st March, 1964 to 26th September, 1964, was maintained. The decree of the trial Court awarding Rs. 253.75 on account of damages for use and occupation for the period 27th September, 1964 to 3rd May, 1965 was also upheld. The decree for pendentelite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month on payment of the requisite court fee was maintained. Only the decree on account of Bhoomi Bhawan Kar for the period 1st July, 1962 to 3rd May, 1965 was modified and reduced from Rs. 70.70 to Rs. 59.50. 7. The defendant has come up in second appeal to this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that when on 27th August, 1964 he was served a notice of demand according to the plaintiff rent was due for five months only, namely from March to July 1964. It has been held by both the courts below that the appellant had validly paid a sum of Rs. 110/- on account of house and water taxes due to the Mahapalika, from the plaintiff in respect of the premises in suit and that he was entitled to adjust this amount towards the rent recoverable from him. It was contended that after adjustment of Rs. 110/- paid by the appellant on account of taxes he could not be held to have been in arrears of rent for more than three moths when he was served with notice terminating his tenancy. It was submitted that in this view of the matter the notice terminating his tenancy was illegal. It was contended that after adjustment of Rs. 110/- paid by the appellant on account of taxes he could not be held to have been in arrears of rent for more than three moths when he was served with notice terminating his tenancy. It was submitted that in this view of the matter the notice terminating his tenancy was illegal. It was also submitted that since the appellant was not in arrears of payment of rent for more- than three months for the purposes of Section 3 (i) (a) of U. P. Act III of 1947 the decree passed by the courts below for his ejectment were illegal. Learned counsel invited my attention to the notice dated 25th April, 1964 issued by the Mahapalika addressed to the appellant Thakur Das, resident of house No. 110/164, intimating that a sum of Rs. 326.16 p. was due from the owner of the house in suit for house and water taxes for the period April, 1964 to September 1964 which had remained paid. The no-ice which is under Section 516 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam directed Thakur das as "occupier" of the house to pay Rs. 35/- per month to the Mahapalika towards tax dues mentioned in the notice. It was urged by the learned counsel that it had been found by the courts below that in compliance with this notice the appellant had paid to the Mahapalika a sum of Rs. 110/- in accordance with Section 516 of the Adhiniyam and was entitled to credit it towards the rent payable by him to his land-lady. On adjustment of this amount, only a sum of Rs. 65/- remained due it was urged, on account of rent and this was less than two months rent even. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that the appellant was not the sole tenant of the house in question. He was occupier only of one-fifth of the total accommodation in the house and was consequently liable to pay only one-fifth of the total taxes due to the Mahapalika. In support of his contention he placed reliance on Section 179(3) of the Adhiniyam and contended that this provision must be read along with Section 516 thereof. 9. He was occupier only of one-fifth of the total accommodation in the house and was consequently liable to pay only one-fifth of the total taxes due to the Mahapalika. In support of his contention he placed reliance on Section 179(3) of the Adhiniyam and contended that this provision must be read along with Section 516 thereof. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having examined the relevant provisions of the Adhiniyam I am of the opinion that the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant must prevail. Section 179(3) of the Adhiniyam to the extent relevant for the purposes of this appeal reads as follows : "179(1). Except where otherwise prescribed, every tax (other than a drainage tax or a conservancy tax) on the annual value of buildings or lands shall be leviable primarily from the actual occupier of the property upon which the tax is assessed, if he is the owner of the building or lands or holds them on a building or other lease from the Central or the State Government or from the Mahapalika, on or a building lease from any person. (2) In any other case the tax shall be primarily leviable as follows, namely : (a) if the property is let from the lessor *** (3) On failure to recover any sum due on account of such tax from the person primarily liable, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may recover from the occupier of any part of the buildings or lands in respect of which it is due that portion thereof which bears to the whole amount due the same ratio as the rent annually payable by such occupier bears to the aggregate amount of rent payable in respect of the whole of the said building or lands, or to the aggregate amount of the letting value thereof in the authenticated assessment list. (4) An occupier who makes any payment for which he is not primarily liable under the foregoing provisions shall, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, be entitled to be reimbursed by the person primarily liable." 10. (4) An occupier who makes any payment for which he is not primarily liable under the foregoing provisions shall, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, be entitled to be reimbursed by the person primarily liable." 10. The definition of the word "occupier" as occurring in Section 2(47) of the Adhiniyam is not exhaustive and includes any person who for the time being is paying or is liable to pay the owner the rent or any portion of the rent of the land or building in respect of which such rent is paid or is payable; an owner living in or otherwise using his land or building; a rent-free tenant; a licensee in occupation of any land or building; and any person who is liable to pay to the owner damages for the use and occupation of any land or building. As would be clear from Sections 179(1) and 179(2)(a) of the Adhiniyam the primary liability for payment of such Mahapalika taxes as are assessed on the basis or the annual value "of building or the lands concerned is of the landlord. The Mahapalika can recover such taxes from a lessee or an "occupier" other than the landlord only if it has failed to recover the same from the person primarily liable, namely the landlord. Subsection (3) in substance places a secondary liability on the tenant or other "occupier" for payment of taxes due only on condition that the Mahapalika has failed to recover it from the landlord. The limitation that only such portion of the taxes due which bears to the whole amount due the same ratio as the rent annually payable by such occupier bears to the aggregate amount of rent payable in respect of the whole of the said building or lands or to the aggregate amount of the letting value thereof in the authenticated assessment list applies only, if the recovery of taxes is made from an occupier under Section 179(3) that is to say if the Mahapalika has failed to recover the tax dues from the landlord. Section 503 lays down the various processes which a Mahapalika may adopt for recovery of its tax dues and runs as follows :- "A Mahapalika tax may be recovered by the following processes in the manner prescribed by rules- (1) by presenting a bill (See Section 504), (2) by serving a written notice of demand (see Section 506), (3) by distraint and sale of a defaulter's movable property (see Sections 507 to 510), (4) by attachment and sale of a defaulter's immovable property (see Sections 512, 513 and 514), (6) in the case of property tax by the attachment of rent due in respect of the property (see Section 516), and (7) by a suit." 11. Section 516 on which the learned counsel for the appellant places reliance and under which a notice was served by the Mahapalika on the appellant is as follows : "516(1) Where a bill for any sum due on account of any property tax is served upon an occupier of premises pursuant to sub-section (1) of Section 504, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may at the time of service or at any subsequent time cause to be served upon the occupier a notice requiring him to pay to the Mahapalika any rent due or falling due from him to the person primarily liable for the payment of the said tax to the extent necessary to satisfy the said sum due. (2) Such notice shall operate as an attachment of the said rent until he said sum due on account of property-tax shall have been paid and satisfied, and the occupier shall be entitled to credit in account with the person to whom the said rent is due for any sum paid by him to the Mahapalika in pursuance of such notice. (3) if the occupier shall fail to pay to the Mahapalika any rent due or falling due which he has been required to pay in pursuance of a novice served upon him as aforesaid the amount of such rent may be recovered from him by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari as if it were an arrear of property tax under Section 504." Section 516 read with Section 503 discloses that attachment of rent payable by a tenant to his landlord is one of the modes by which the Mahapalika is entitiled to recover tax clues from the landlord who by reason of Section 179 of the Adhiniyam is primarily liable for payment of the tax due. Under Section 516(1) the Mahapalika can call upon an occupier, by serving upon him a notice, to pay to the Mahapalika any rent which might be due or which shall fall due in future to the person primarily lable for payment of the taxes. If no rent is due or no rent is liable to fall due no notice under section 516(1) can be served upon an occupier. The fact that under Section 516(1) a notice can be served upon an occupier only in respect of the rent due or falling due in future shows that it can be served only upon a person liable to pay rent and not on occupiers other than tenants. Section 516 unlike Section 179(3) does not enable a Mahapalika to recover taxes in arrears, from a tenant by way of a secondary liability. It empowers the Mahapalika as already stated to recover moneys which ale either actually due as rent to the landlord or will fall due in future to him. This provision envisages in substance a power in the Mahapalika to indirectly recover taxes due from the landlord by attaching and collecting rents to which he is entitled or will become entitled before they find their way into his pocket. It is significant that unlike Section 179(4) Section 516(2) entitles the occupier to credit the amounts paid by him directly to the Mahapalika towards the rent payable by him to his landlord. On the other hand Section 179(4) merely entitles an "occupier" in the absence of a contract to the contrary to be reimbursed by the person primarily liable. It is significant that unlike Section 179(4) Section 516(2) entitles the occupier to credit the amounts paid by him directly to the Mahapalika towards the rent payable by him to his landlord. On the other hand Section 179(4) merely entitles an "occupier" in the absence of a contract to the contrary to be reimbursed by the person primarily liable. Recovery as already stated can be made final an "occupier" by the Mahapalika under Section 179(3) only on its failure to recover taxes from the person primarily liable after exercising the various powers made available to it under Section 503. Section 179(3) is not confined to a situation where an "occupier" is liable to pay any rent to the owner of the premises. The power under Section 179(3) can be exercised even if no rent is due or likely to fall due from the occupier to the landlord. A comparison of Section 516 and Section 179 leads to the inevitable conclusion that while both arm the Mahapalika with powers to realise taxes due they apply in different situations. While section 516 is applicable only to realisation of taxes by the Mahapalika from tenants liable to pay rent to the landlord and is one of the normal modes of recovery of taxes from the person primarily liable, Section 179(3) places a secondary liability on the occupier for payment of taxes due from the owner of the building. Thus the contention that Section 516 must be read subject to Section 179(3) is not tenable. 12. In the instant case rents due from the appellant to the respondent as well as rents to fall due in future were attached and consequently paid by the appellant to the Mahapalika under Section 516 and not under Section 179(3). In the view taken by me with regard to sections 179(3) and 516 of the Adhiniyam. I find no difficulty in holding that the amount of Rs. 110/- paid by the appellant to the Mahapalika under Section 516 was a valid payment and he was entitled to adjust it towards the rent payable by him to the respondent. After adjusting this amount, less than two months rent was due from him to the plaintiff respondent at the time when notice of demand was served on him. 110/- paid by the appellant to the Mahapalika under Section 516 was a valid payment and he was entitled to adjust it towards the rent payable by him to the respondent. After adjusting this amount, less than two months rent was due from him to the plaintiff respondent at the time when notice of demand was served on him. The notice terminating he appellant's tenancy was consequently illegal and since he was not a defaulter within the meaning of section 3(1)(a) of the U. P. Act III of 1947 he was not liable to be ejected from the premises in his tenancy. 13. For the reasons given this appeal is allowed in part. The decree for ejectment of the appellant from the premises in dispute is hereby set aside. In view of the fact that the appellant continued to be the respondents tenant and the notice terminating his tenancy was invalid the decree of the court below awarding damages for the period 27th September, 1964 to 3rd May, 1965 and ending the respondent to pendentelite and future damages on payment of court fee is set aside. The decree of the court below in as far as it awarded arrears of rent for the period is March, 1964 to 26th September, 1964 and for Bhoomi Bhawan Kar amounting to Rs. 59.50 p. for the period 1st July, 1962 to 3rd May, 1965 is maintained. In the written statement filed the defendant did not take the plea he raised in the appeal before me. In the grounds of appeal filed in this Court also the plea with regard to the invalidity of the notice of demand and termination of his tenancy was not raised. In the circumstances I direct that the parties shall bear their own costs throughout. Interim order, if any, by this court is withdrawn.