JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a landlord's second appeal for ejectment and arrears of rent etc. 2. The building consists of several tenements and is occupied by a number of tenants including the defendant respondent, who has been in occupation of two tenements one on payment of Rs. 12.50 per month and other on payment of Rs. 10/- per month as rent. Rent from April, 1964 fell into arrears. The plaintiff, thereupon, served two separate notices on the defendant demanding arrears of rent from April 1, 1964 and terminating the tenancy in respect of the two tenements occupied by the defendant respondent. The notices were served personally on the defendant respondent on February 6, 1995. In reply, the dependent respondent informed the plaintiff appellant that the rent for the period April 1, 1964 to January 31, 1965 had been deposited by him in the Nagar Mahapalika towards house and water taxes. Plaintiff appellant's case was that only the amount of Rs. 90.11 deposited on February 20, 1965 was towards the house and water taxes and the other sums alleged to have been deposited by the defendant were in respect of excess water charges. By an amendment in the plaint it was further pleaded by the plaintiff appellant that he was served with a notice of demand dated December 17, 1963 regarding property Taxes (house tax and water tax) and Rs. 386.35 on account of excess water tax. The plaintiff alleged that he deposited Rs. 342/- as property tax for the period April 1, 1963 to March 31, 1964 but the water supply was disconnected for non-payment of excess water charges. It was also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had admitted the liability for payment of excess water charges. The liability of the several tenements was in proportion to the rent payable by them in respect of their tenements. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 91.78 as arrears of rent in respect of one tenement and Rs. 72.53 as arrears of rent in respect of the other tenement besides damages for use and occupation after the date of termination of the tenancy. 3. The defence was that Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur had a notice dated July 18, 1964 attached the rent payable by the defendant respondent to the plaintiff appellant, for the recovery of Rs. 72.53 as arrears of rent in respect of the other tenement besides damages for use and occupation after the date of termination of the tenancy. 3. The defence was that Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur had a notice dated July 18, 1964 attached the rent payable by the defendant respondent to the plaintiff appellant, for the recovery of Rs. 762.39 on account of property taxes and that the defendant respondent had to pay the attached rent to the Nagar Mahapalika from April 1, 1964 to June, 1965 and was entitled to adjust the payment so made against the rent payable to the plaintiff appellant. It was further alleged that the defendant respondent was not liable to pay the excess water charges as there was no agreement between the parties that excess water charges shall be payable by the tenant. 4. The Court of I Additional Munsif, Kanpur who tried the suit framed as many as 8 issues. Issue No. 1, which was whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action, was tried as a preliminary issue and was decided in the negative against the defendant. On issue Nos. 2, 5 and 8 the trial Court held that the defendant respondent was liable to pay the charges for excess water consumed, to the plaintiff appellant, that the payment of excess water charges to the Nagar Mahapalika was in discharge of his own liability to pay a part thereof and the defendant respondent could not, therefore, claim any adjustment of the amount deposited towards the excess water charges either from the future rent or from the arrears of rent, and that excess water charges are not included within the definition of property tax and was, therefore, not liable to be adjusted towards the rent. In the context of this issue it was found by the trial Court that no order of attachment of rent was passed by an authority competent to do so on behalf of the Nagar Mahapalika and what appears to have happened was that an application was moved on July 4, 1964 on behalf of the tenants of the building to have the water connection restored as the same had been disconnected for non-payment of excess water charges. In that application the tenants offered to pay excess water charges to the Nagar Mahapalika by instalments and in the opinion of the learned Munsif they thus invited attachment of the rent. He found that there was no order of attachment in writing. No notice of demand was sent to the plaintiff appellant to pay the property taxes before the attachment of the rent and that the notice attaching the rent was illegal. On issue No.6 it was held that there was no evidence to show that defendant respondent spent anything on restoration of the water connection. On issue No. 4 the learned Munsif held that the defendant respondent failed to pay the arrears of rent for more than three months when the demand for payment of the same was made by him. He was, thus, a defaulter. On issue No. 7 it was held that the defendant was liable to eviction and to pay Rs. 388.75 in all on account of rent and damages for use and occupation. The suit was, accordingly, decreed for ejectment of the defendant from the premises in suit and for recovery of Rs. 388.75 as also pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 22.50 per month with proportionate costs. 5. On appeal, the lower appellate Court has reversed the decree of the trial Court, and while dismissing the suit for ejectment of the defendant respondent from the premises in suit it has granted a decree for recovery of Rs. 67.50 only on account of arrears of rent which was, according to the lower appellate Court, due from the defendant respondent and happens to be the rent for exactly three months and no more. 67.50 only on account of arrears of rent which was, according to the lower appellate Court, due from the defendant respondent and happens to be the rent for exactly three months and no more. The lower appellate Court held that it was the landlord's primary responsibility to pay water tax as well as the excess water charges to the Nagar Mahapalika that Section 181 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides the excess water charges from part of the property taxes and the Nagar Mahapalika was authorised to demand excess water charges and meter charges form the landlord and had a right to recover the same as land revenue and that the fact that the tenant had to pay the excess water charges, cannot effect the validity of attachment of rent that the attachment of rent that the attachment of was by the Nagar Mahapalika was valid, the defendant respondent was entitled to adjust the payment made by him in pursuance of the attachment from the rent payable to the plaintiff that the payment of Rs. 67.39 made on July 18, 1964 could not be regarded to be a payment made in pursuance of the notice of attachment because the same was served on July 20, 1964 and accordingly the defendant was not entitled to adjust the same from the rent payable by him that the defendant had paid Rs. 157.61 (excluding Rs. 67.39 paid on 18.7.1964) and after adjusting this amount more than three months rent could not be said to be in arrears on the date of service of notice by the plaintiff appellant and the defendant respondent was, accordingly, not a defaulter and not liable to ejectment. 6. Mr. K.M. Dayal, learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant, has urged before me firstly that the view of the lower appellate Court that the attachment of rent payable by the defendant respondent to the plaintiff appellant was lawfully made by the Nagar Mahallika is erroneous and secondly that the payment of excess water charges is the sole liability of the tenant and any payment made towards the excess water charges cannot be adjusted against the rent payable to the landlord and the defendant respondent was a defaulter and was liable to ejectment from the premises in suit. Mr. Mr. K.M. Dayal in support of his submission drew my attention to a judgment dated April 28, 198 by Hon'ble Bakshi J., sitting singly in Second Appeal No. 3328 of 1967 (Sri Bal Ram Krishna Srivastava v. Ganga Prasad Gupta. That case relates to another tenement of the same building and facts of that case were closely similar except for the facts that in that case the judgment of the lower appellate Court was in the landlord's favour. It has been held by the learned Single Judge in that case that payment of excess water charges was the liability of the tenant. Reliance has been placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Nisar Ahmad and others v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur and others, 1976(2) A.L.R. 478, for that view. Respectfully following that view I must hold that the lower appellate Court was in error in holding that it was the landlord's primary responsibility to pay the excess water charges alongwith the water tax to the Nagar Mahapalika. I say in this connection and that the property taxes leviable under the Act are defined by Section 73 thereof. Extra water charges are not included within the definition of property taxes. Reliance placed by the lower appellate Court on Section 181 of the Act is wholly misplaced for all that the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 181 of the Act lays down is to say that the term "property taxes' in this section shall be deemed to include any charges payable for water supplied in the rules. Instead of saying that excess water charges are included within the meaning of property taxes, the Explanation rather show that except for the purposes of Section 181 they are not so included. They are so included only for the purpose of Section 181, which concerned with imposing a charge for recovery of property taxes on the building to which they relate. 7. With regard to the second point urged by Mr. K.M. Dayal it would be clear from the reading of Section 516 of the Act that attachment of rent due could lawfully be made by the Nagar Mahapalika only that after a bill for the sum due on account of any property tax is served upon an occupier of premises pursuant to sub-section (1) of Section 504. K.M. Dayal it would be clear from the reading of Section 516 of the Act that attachment of rent due could lawfully be made by the Nagar Mahapalika only that after a bill for the sum due on account of any property tax is served upon an occupier of premises pursuant to sub-section (1) of Section 504. The amount for which the attachment was purported to have been made included the sum of Rs. 396.36 on account of excess water charges. Rents payable by the tenants to the plaintiff appellant could not, therefore, be attached for recovery of any part of his amount. It was alleged by the plaintiff that Rs. 342/- had been paid by him on account of property taxes. But it has been found that the payment was made in respect of the property taxes for the financial year 1963-64 and not for the financial year 1964-65 in respect of which the attachment was levied. It is rather extraordinary that the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur chose to attach the rent payable by the tenants, including the defendant respondent of the several tenements belonging to plaintiff appellant on July 18, 1964 for non-payment of the property taxes and excess water charges for the financial year 1964-65. The bills in respect of the property taxes are submitted six monthly and even the bill for the first six monthly instalments would not have been served by them in the normal course of things for the financial year 1964-65. A perusal of paper No. 94(c) which is the certified copy of a letter dated December 17, 1963 sent by the Nagar Mahapalika to the plaintiff appellant, would show that the amount for which the attachment was levied, vide paper No. 95(C) related to a financial year 1963-64 and not the financial year 1964-65. There is, thus, a clear misreading of evidence on the part of the lower appellate Court in holding that the amount of Rs. 342/- alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff appellant did not relate to the property taxes for which the rent were attached. The receipt for the payment is dated March 31, 1964 and is paper No. 89(C) on the record. It is thus, clear that the amount of Rs. 342/- alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff appellant did not relate to the property taxes for which the rent were attached. The receipt for the payment is dated March 31, 1964 and is paper No. 89(C) on the record. It is thus, clear that the amount of Rs. 342/- alleged to be the property taxes for which attachment was levied on July 18, 1964 and in the fact not due had already been paid on March 31, 1964 by the plaintiff appellant. It follows that the attachment was made only for the recovery of excess water charges which it has already been found was not the liability of the plaintiff appellant. It must, therefore, be held that the attachment was illegal because the attachment of rent can only be made for recovery of property taxes. 8. This is sufficient to dispose of the appeal. However, since the point has been raised, it has to be observed that attachment of rent due under Section 516 of the Act can only be made when a bill for any sum due on account of any property tax is served upon an occupier of the premises. The conditions precedent for attachment of rent due from a tenant, therefore, are that there must be some property tax due from the landlord, who is the person primarily liable to pay the same where the building is let and a bill for the same must be served on the occupier, that is, the tenant. 9. In this case it has already been shown that no property tax was due from the plaintiff landlord. Apart from this, it has not been shown that any bill for any such property tax was ever served on the tenants. No attachment can be made unless a bill for the sum due is served on the tenant. The attachment may be made simultaneously with the service of the bill or at any subsequent time. But it cannot be made without serving on the occupier a bill for the property tax claimed to be due from the person primarily liable for payment of the same. 10. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The attachment may be made simultaneously with the service of the bill or at any subsequent time. But it cannot be made without serving on the occupier a bill for the property tax claimed to be due from the person primarily liable for payment of the same. 10. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur in Civil Appeal No. 305 of 1967 are set aside and the decree of the Court of I Additional Munsif Kanpur in Suit No. 2138 of 1965 is restored. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's costs throughout.