JUDGMENT K. M. Dayal, J. 1. HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. 2. THE present petition has been filed against the revisional order dated 25-4-1980 decreeing the suit for ejectment of the petitioner and reversing the judgment of the Judge Small Causes. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff respondent no. 3 who was the landlord of the disputed accommodation filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed accommodation claiming arrears of rent, water-tax, damages and costs. The suit was filed on the basis of default under section 20 (2) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act. 20th July 1977 was the date fixed in the summons for filing the written statement. 3. THE defendant filed his written statement on 20th July 1977 and also deposited an amount of Rs. 1825/-under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act claiming that he be relieved of ejectment. It was claimed that no amount of water-tax was payable in respect of the accommodation. THEre were other proceedings under Order XV Rule 5 CPC and ultimately the case came up for hearing before the Judge Small Causes. THE Judge Small Causes dismissed the suit for ejectment and recovery of water-tax claimed by the plaintiff. THE plaintiff had claimed Rs. 466/20 p. as water-tax from 15-7-1972 to 28-2-1977. 4. THE Judge Small Cause Court held that the defendant, while depositing the amount in court, had complied with the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act and consequently he could not be ejected. A revision was filed by the respondent no. 3 under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. That revision has been allowed and the suit for ejectment as well as recovery of water-tax has been decreed. 5. THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the only evidence on record in proof of water-tax payable in respect of the accommodation was a municipal assessment of the year 1962-63. In that assessment three tenants were shown as residing in the house and the total assessment was Rs. 39/- per month. THE learned counsel has produced a certified copy of the same document before me in this court; that shows three tenants on the spot; one was paying Rs. 16/- per month, the other was paying Rs. In that assessment three tenants were shown as residing in the house and the total assessment was Rs. 39/- per month. THE learned counsel has produced a certified copy of the same document before me in this court; that shows three tenants on the spot; one was paying Rs. 16/- per month, the other was paying Rs. 8/-per month and the third was paying Rs. 8/-. THE annual value mentioned in column 6 of the assessment is Rs. 468/-. 6. THE learned counsel for the respondent, however, argued that the amount of water-tax assessed was wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the present case. He argued that the water-tax at the rate of 12% was payable in respect of the tenanted portion of the building. As rent was Rs. 70/- per month the water-tax payable would be Rs. 8. 40 per month. I pointedly enquired from the learned counsel if there was any evidence to show that the building was assessed or the portion in dispute was assessed in the municipal board at any particular time. Learned counsel had to concede that there was absolutely no evidence to show the assessment or the annual value determined by the Municipal Board in respect of the disputed portion. THE annual value is defined in section 140(1) (b) of the Municipalities Act. Tax has to be imposed under section 149 and that creates the liability for payment of tax in respect of the building. In our case the court below instead of giving a finding on the basis of evidence on record entered the realm of surmises and conjectures. It presumed that the building must have been reassessed after 1960-61. It however did not refer to any amount of annual value on which it has been reassessed. Under the circumstances there is nothing on the record to show the exact amount which was payable in respect of the disputed portion as water-tax. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that as there has been no assessment since 1961 and the three tenants which were assessed were mentioned in the assessment. The petitioner's portion has never been assessed. Consequently no water-tax was payable in respect of that portion. As there is absolutely no evidence produced by the plaintiff to show that amount payable in respect of the portion itself, the plaintiff should himself be blamed. The petitioner's portion has never been assessed. Consequently no water-tax was payable in respect of that portion. As there is absolutely no evidence produced by the plaintiff to show that amount payable in respect of the portion itself, the plaintiff should himself be blamed. The water-tax payable in respect of the disputed portion was assessed on the plaintiff and it was within the knowledge of the plaintiff as to what amount was payable. Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act it was for the plaintiff to prove as to what amount of water-tax was payable in respect of the disputed portion. 7. COMING to the second question the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the amount deposited by the defendant on 20th July 1977 covered the dues upto 30th April 1977. The deposit was made on 20th July under the circumstances the dues for the months of May and June should also have been deposited. As there has been an excess deposit in respect of water-tax amounting to Rs. 483/- the amount of Rs. 140/- rent for two months can be adjusted there from. The defendant had substantially and completely complied with the conditions of section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Thus the suit of the plaintiff could not be decreed for ejectment of the defendant. 8. SECTION 7 has been enacted to reimburse the landlord for water-tax which he is liable to pay under the Municipalities Act or other similar enactments. It has not been made to enable the landlord to make a further earning by charging water tax from the tenants, though none is paid or payable in respect of the tenanted portion. In the result, the present petition is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge in revision is quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs from the contesting respondent. Petition allowed.