( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs' second appeal and it raises a short point of law, viz. , whether the stipulation by the tenant to pay the municipal taxes for the premises occupied wquld form part1 of the rent for the premises. ( 2 ) THE landlords instituted a, suit in O. S. No. 116 of 1971 before the principal Munsiff, Bijapur for eviction of the tenants from the suit premises. According to the landlords, the rental agreed was Rs. 16/- per day in addition to the payment of municipal taxes by the tenants. The tax amounted to Rs. 1,246]- per year. Therefore, the landlords affirmed that the provisions of the Karnatajta Rent Control Act would not be attracted for evicting the tenants under sec. 31 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). They terminated the tenancy and instituted action for eviction of the tenants. ( 3 ) THE tenants; contested the suit putting forward, several contentions. According to them, the municipal tax agreed to be paid and paid by them, did not form part of the rent. As such, the rent was Rs. 16/- per day which amounted to Rs. 480/- per month and as such, the rental was not more than rs. 500/- per month for the premises which was a cinema theatre and as such, the provisions of the Act did apply. The suit brought before the ordinary court of the land was not tenable. They further contended that all the heirs of the original landlord were not arrayed as plaintiffs. According to them, the notice to quit was; not legal and valid. They further contended that there was an agreement to execute a perpetual lease deed and as such, they could not be evicted under S. 53a of the Transfer of Property Act. ( 4 ) ON these pleadings, the learned Munsiff raised the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs alone are not entitled to file the present suit for the reasons stated in para 2 of the written statement of Defendants 2 and 3? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the rent agreed is more than rs. 500 per month? If so, whether the provisions of the Karnataka Rent control Act are not applicable to the present case? 3. 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the rent agreed is more than rs. 500 per month? If so, whether the provisions of the Karnataka Rent control Act are not applicable to the present case? 3. Do they further prove the sub-lease of the eastern portion of the suit premises, to Defendants 4 to 10 as alleged? 4. Whether Defendants 2 and 3 can seek protection, under S. 53a of the T. P. Act for the reasons stated in para, 9 of their written statement? 5. Whether the plaintiffs claim as against Defendants 4 to 10 is hit by the provisions of S. 61 and 22 of the Karnataka Rent Control act? 6. Whether the quit notice is legal and valid? 7. Whether the plaintiffs claim is hit by the provisions of the bombay Bent Control Act for the reasons stated in para 11 of the written statement of Defendants 2 and 3? 8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit property? 9. What decree or order? ( 5 ) THE learned Munsiff, appreciating the evidence on record, in the light of the arguments addressed, before him, held under Issue No. 1 that the s,uit was maintainable as filed by the plaintiffs, under Issue No, 2, he held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the) monthly rental was more than Rs. 500/- and as such, according, to him, the provisions of the Act applied. On the issues of sub-lease, viz. , Issue Nos. 3 and 5, the learned Munsiff held that the sub-letting was prior to the coming into force of the Act ana that the tenants could not be evicted on that ground. Under Issue No, 4, he came to the conclusion that the doctrine of part performance under Sec. 53a of the T. P. Act could not be, attracted to the facts of the case. Under issue No. 6, he held that the notice to quit was valid. Under Issue No. 7, he held that the provisions of Bombay Rent Control Act did not come in the way of the present suit. But, in the view that he- had taken that the suit was to be instituted under the provisions of the Act, he dismissed the suit by his judgment and decree dated 16-11-1974. Under Issue No. 7, he held that the provisions of Bombay Rent Control Act did not come in the way of the present suit. But, in the view that he- had taken that the suit was to be instituted under the provisions of the Act, he dismissed the suit by his judgment and decree dated 16-11-1974. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs went up in appeal before the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur, in RA No. 4 of 1975, who, on hearing the appeal, dismissed the same, confirming that the suit was not maintainable under the general law and that the defendants had established their averment under Sec. 53a of the Transfer of Property act. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs have come up in appeal before this Court. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel Shri. V. Krishnamurthy appearing for the ap- pellants submitted, that the Courts below erred in holding that the payment of the Municipal taxes by the tenants pursuant to an agreement did not form part of the rental and as such, he urged that the' suit, as brought before the ordinary court of law, was maintainable and ought to have been decreed. On the aspect of applicability of Sec. 53a of the T. P. Act, he submitted that there was no agreement to lease the property permanently to the tenants as contended by them and as such, the learned Civil Judge wa,s not justified in reversing the finding of the learned Munsiff that S. 53a of the t. P. Act was not applied to the facts of the present case. ( 8 ) AS against this, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents argued supporting the reasoning and the findings of the learned Civil Judge. ( 9 ) THE points, therefore, that arise for my consideration in this appeal are: (1) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the payment of municipal tax by the tenant could not be, considered as part of the rent? (2) Whether the learned Civil Judge was justified in holding that sec. 53a of the T. P. Act was attracted to the facts of the case? ( 10 ) I would, take up the second point first for consideration. There is no agreement to lease between the parties that the tenants would be granted permanent lease. (2) Whether the learned Civil Judge was justified in holding that sec. 53a of the T. P. Act was attracted to the facts of the case? ( 10 ) I would, take up the second point first for consideration. There is no agreement to lease between the parties that the tenants would be granted permanent lease. Hence, the finding of the learned Civil Judge, that Sep. 53a T. P. Act applied to the facts of the case is manifestly untenable. The learned Munsiff had rightly rejected it. I agree with him and hold that Sec 53a T. P. Act is not attracted to the facts of the case. ( 11 ) THE only other point that was agitated before me was the short question, whether the payment of municipal taxes by the tenants could be considered as part of the rent. That question looms large on the facts of the present case, because, if the payment of the municipal taxes are held to be part of the payment of the rent, the rental of the suit premises would exceed rs. 5001- and under Se. c. 31 Part V of thq Act, viz. , procedure contemplated for eviction of the tenants, would not be attracted and the landlords would be at liberty to bring the suit for eviction against the tenants under the general law of the land, viz. , T. P. Act, after terminating the tenancy. ( 12 ) BOTH the courts below have concurrently held that though the tenants agreed, and did pay the municipal taxes amounting to Rs. 1,240/- per year, the same could not be considered as part of rent. The rent, accord ing to the Courts below, was merely Rs. 16/- per day. In that view, the courts below have held concurrently that the provisions of the Act were attracted to the facts of the case, the rental not exceeding Rs. 500/- per month. It is in that view, that they dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the tenants. ( 13 ) SHRI Krishnamurthy, the learned Counsel appearing for the appell- ants invited my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the, case, of karnani Properties Ltd. v. Augustine ( AIR 1957 SC. 500/- per month. It is in that view, that they dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the tenants. ( 13 ) SHRI Krishnamurthy, the learned Counsel appearing for the appell- ants invited my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the, case, of karnani Properties Ltd. v. Augustine ( AIR 1957 SC. 309 .) his Lordship Justice Sinha, who delivered the judgment for the Bench in that case, has observed in para 5 of the judgment thus:"in this connection reference may be made to the decision of the court of Appeal in the case of Property Holding Co. Ltd. , v. Clark- 1948-1 KB 63 and the case of Alliance Property co. Ltd vs Shraffer - 1948-2 KB 4g4 which followed the earlier decision to the effect that if the stipulations between landlord and tenant include payment of rent for not only what may properly be characterised as "premises within the ordinary acceptation of the term but also payment in respect of lighting, cooking equipment, the furnishing and clearning of hall and staircase and certain other similar amenities, the sum total of the payments in respect of the building or part of the building and other services and amenities constitute rent. "thus, the Supreme Court has made it amply clear that rent includes any payment made for the occupation of the premises and in addition, they also include payment for amenities provided by the landlord. Shri Krishnamurthy submitted that as in this case, as the tenant was bound to pay the municipal taxes in addition to Rs. 16/- per day for occupying the premises, viz. , cinema theatre, the municipal taxes also formed part of the rent. He further invited my attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Seenappa v. Shroffputtappa ( (1969) 2 Mys. L. J. 363), Therein his Lordship Chandrashekhar, J. as he then was, has laid down specifically that municipal taxes agreed to be paid by the tenant should be regarded as part of the agreed rent and not as premium or any consideration in addition to the agreed rent. Hence, he submitted that the Courts below were not justified in coming to the conclusion that payment of municipal taxes by the tenants, which the tenants" did pay, did not form part of the rental for the premises. Hence, he submitted that the Courts below were not justified in coming to the conclusion that payment of municipal taxes by the tenants, which the tenants" did pay, did not form part of the rental for the premises. ( 14 ) AS against that, the learned Counsel for the tenants respondents invited my attention to a later decision of this Court in the case of Radha- krishna Pai c. Sundara Pai (CRP. No. 259811973. dt. 14-3-1974 ). Therein His Lordship Justice Nesargi ob- served that municipal taxes agreed to be paid by the tenant could not be considered to be part of the rent. Both the Courts below have no doubt relied on this decision in coming to the conclusion that municipal taxes paid by the tenant did not form part of the rent. ( 15 ) ON going through the said decision of His Lordship Justice Nesargi, however, I find that the decision was rendered for the purpose of fixing the rent summarily under Sec. 29 (3) of the Act. The C. R. P. arose out of an order of the Second Additional Munsiff, Udupi, passed on I. A. II in H. R. C. No- 28 1970. The said I. A. was under Sec. 29 of the Act. There was no agreement of lease. In Para 3 of the order, His Lordship has observed thus "the learned Munsiff recorded evidence in the enquiry under Sec. 29 (3) of the Act and fcund that the petitioner had paid municipal taxes on some occasions. There was no, written lease deed. " on those peculiar circumstances for the purpose of fixing the rent summarily under Sep. 29 (3) of the Act on the facts of that case, His Lordship observed that municipal taxes did not form part of the rent. This cannot be equated to a general ratio decidendi that municipal taxes would not form part of the rent. Lord Halsbury in Quin vs Leatham (1901 AC 495, 505.) has observed, speaking on precedents thus:"every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be exposition of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. . . . . A case is only an authority for what it actually decides, I entirely deny that it can be quoted for proposition that may seem' to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code. Whereas every lawyer must acknowledge, that the law is not ajways logical at all. "viewed in that perspective, it becomes manifest that, the observations of Nesargi, J. , in the case cited above are only applicable for that case. The observations were made, as stated above, in a summary proceeding for fixing the rent under Sec. 29 (3) of the Act. It is on the facts of that case. Hence i am not persuaded to hold that His Lordship intended to lay down a general proposition of law, especially so, when there was already a decision of this Court directly on the point by Justice Chandrashekhar, as he then was, in the case of Seenappa v. Shroff Puttappa (2) as quoted above. ( 16 ) MOREOVER, the term 'rent' is not defined in the Act and as such, we have to necessarily fall back upon the general law on the subject viz. , t. P. Act. Mulla, in his Commentary on the Transfer of Property Act, sixth Edition, has observed thus at page: 659:"where the lessee agreed to pay the lessor Rs. 100 a year as rent and Rs. 16-8 on aecqunt of the Government assessment payable by the lessor, the Court held that Rs. 36-8 was not rent as the property demised was subject to the assessment and the assessment was, therefore, not a profit. It is true that the assessment was a charge upon the land, but, when the lessee agreed to relieve the lessor of this charge, that was surety part of the profit or usufruct or increase, to quote- the words of lord Cairns in Gowan v. Christie (1873) APP 273 accruing out of the demise. But in Indian law, any payment by the lessee, that is part of the consideration of the lease is rent. Thus when the lea,se provides collection charges, in addition to rent, such charges arq really part "of the rent. So also a stipulation to pay assessment or taxes payable by the lessor makes the assessment or taxes pajt of the rent. . Thus when the lea,se provides collection charges, in addition to rent, such charges arq really part "of the rent. So also a stipulation to pay assessment or taxes payable by the lessor makes the assessment or taxes pajt of the rent. . " ( 17 ) IN a case "under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction 'and Lease) control Act, under S. 10, in the case of Fatehuddin Akbar v. Ghan Shama- das (1957 Andh. L. T- 648), it is observed thus:"where the tenant agreed to pay taxes, in addition to the payment of rent, it means that the total rent is made up of a particular sum of money which is payable to the landlord and another sum which is payable to the municipality on behalf of the landlord. The word 'rent' means the return in money or kind for the enjoyment of specific property held by one person from another. The non-payment of the taxes would mean non-payment of rent and could be recovered under S. 10 of the Act and the tenant would be evicted. "that is also the, view of the learned Commentator Andhyarujana, in his treatise 'law of Rent Control' (1974 ). At page 70 of his book he has observed thus:"municipal taxes, whether part of rent. Any payment by the lessee that is part of the consideration of the lease is rent. (Mohanlal vsi Maheswari Mills Ltd. , (1962) 3 Guj. L. R. 574; Navnitlal Champaka prasad vs The Commissioner Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, AIR 1957 bom. 163 Etc) Therefore, the municipal taxes, property taxes and Government taxes in respect of the demised premises payable by the lessee, under the terms 6f the lease form part of the rent. "thus, there is overwhelming authority on the proposition that even municipal taxes agreed to be paid by the tenant form part of the rent as is already laid down by this Court as discussed above. The Courts below, therefore, were clearly in error in coming to the conclusion that the municipal taxes agreed to be paid and paid by the tenants in this case, did not form part of the rental. ( 18 ) THAT being so, it is obvious that the monthly rental for the premises would exceed Rs. 500/- and the suit for eviction brought under the general law before the learned Munsiff is maintainable. ( 18 ) THAT being so, it is obvious that the monthly rental for the premises would exceed Rs. 500/- and the suit for eviction brought under the general law before the learned Munsiff is maintainable. The learned Munsiff has held that there was proper termination of tenancy. The contending respondents did not challenge that finding either before the first appellate court or here. That being so, the landlords are entitled for a decree for possession of the suit premises as prayed for. ( 19 ) NO other point was agitated for my consideration in this appeal. ( 20 ) IN the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed. The Judgments and decrees of the Courts below dismissing the suit, are set aside. The suit is decreed as prayed for, for possession of the suit premises. The concerned respondent shall also pay future mesne profits from the date of the suit till the delivery of vacant possession at the rate of Rs. 16/- per day and the municipal taxes, if they have not already paid the same. The tenants are, however, granted three months' time to vacate from today. On the peculiar facts of the case, I direct that the parties shall bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .