JUDGMENT S.S. Ahmad, J. - The Petitioner is a tenant of opposite party No. 1 in respect of upper portion of house No. 173/27, Dr. B.N. Verma Road, Lucknow. The rent of the accommodation in question is Rs. 500/-per month. 2. A suit was filed by opposite party No. 1 for recovery of municipal taxes against the Petitioner. The amount claimed in the suit was Rs. 2436/-. It was stated by the Plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 that the accommodation in question was let out to the Petitioner after making substantial improvement, as a result of which the municipal taxes pertaining to the property in question were increased. The Petitioner was said to be under a liability to pay water tax as also 25 per cent of the enhancement in the house tax as provided by Section 7 of the Act. A demand was made by opposite party No. 1 for the above taxes but the Petitioner did not pay and hence the suit was filed. 3. The suit was contested by the Petitioner on the ground, inter alia, that since there was a specific agreement between the parties that the Petitioner would pay only Rs. 500/- per month as rent, the Petitioner was not liable to pay the water tax or the house tax as claimed by the Respondent No. 1. 4. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court with the finding that since the Defendant had not agreed to pay house tax and water tax, he was not liable to pay those taxes to Respondent No. 1. 5. Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed a revision which was allowed by I Ind Additional District Judge, Lucknow by judgment and order dated 15th September, 1979 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The learned Additional District Judge placing reliance on the provisions of Section 7 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) held that the Petitioner was not only liable to pay to opposite party No. 1 the water tax but also the house tax. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the very outset has fairly conceded that the Petitioner is under a clear statutory liability to pay the water tax. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the very outset has fairly conceded that the Petitioner is under a clear statutory liability to pay the water tax. He has, however, challenged the decision of the learned Additional District Judge in so far as it relates to the payment of house tax. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in view of the specific agreement between the parties that the rent payable for the accommodation in question would be Rs. 500/-, the landlord opposite party No. 1 was not entitled to recover anything more from the Petitioner particularly when it was the admitted case of the opposite party No. 1 himself that the premises in question had been let out to the Petitioner after the coming into force of the Act. This contention, in my opinion, has no substance. 7. The liability to pay taxes is now the statutory liability of the tenant vide Section 7 of the Act which reads as under: 7. Liability to pay taxes-Subject to any contract in writing to the contrary, but notwithstanding anything contained in Section 179 of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 or in Section 149 or in any rule made or notification issued u/s 338 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 or in Section 14(1)(e) of the United Provinces Town Areas Act, 1914, the tenant shall be liable to pay to the landlord in addition to and as part of the rent, the following taxes or proportionate part thereof, if any, payable in respect of the building or part under his tenancy, namely: (a) the Water tax; (b) twenty-five per cent of every such enhancement in house tax made after the commencement of this Act, or such portion thereof, as is not occasioned on account of the increase in the assessment of the building as a result of the enhancement of rent under the provisions of Section 5: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply in relation to a tenant the rate of rent payable by whom for the time being (excluding any enhancement of rent under provisions of Section 5) does not exceed twenty-five rupees per month. 8. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that under Clause (b) of Section 7 of the Act, if the enhancement in the house tax is referable to the increase in the assessment of the building which in its turn is referable to the enhancement of rent, the tenant would not be liable to pay the house tax. This is not correct. Section 7 lays down that the liability to pay certain taxes would be that of the tenant. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule. If the rent of the house does not exceed Rs. 25/- per month, the tenant under certain circumstances would not be liable to pay house tax (vide proviso to Section 7). We are not concerned with this exception. We are concerned with the exception contained in Clause (b) of Section 7. This is an exception of a limited nature. It provides that if the assessment has been increased on account of enhancement of rent u/s 5 of the Act which has resulted in the enhancement of the house tax, the tenant would not be liable to pay 25 per cent of the enhanced house tax. In this clause word " such " has been used twice and every time is referable to the phrase " as is not occasioned ". Section 5 of the Act, in cases where the tenancy is continuing from before the commencement of the Act, allows a landlord to enhance the rent by a notice in writing given to the tenant within three months from the date of the commencement of the Act. On a reading of Section 7 and 5 together, it would be clear that if the landlord has enhanced the rent u/s 5 of the Act, as a result of which the assessment has been increased and the house-tax has been enhanced, the tenant would not be liable to pay 25 per cent of the enhanced house tax. 9. In the instant case the accommodation in question was let out to the Petitioner sometime in the year 1973, i.e. after the commencement of the Act. The landlord admittedly has not enhanced the rent u/s 5 of the Act. The Petitioner would, therefore, be liable to pay 25 per cent of the enhanced house tax. The suit was rightly decreed by the learned Additional District Judge. 10. The landlord admittedly has not enhanced the rent u/s 5 of the Act. The Petitioner would, therefore, be liable to pay 25 per cent of the enhanced house tax. The suit was rightly decreed by the learned Additional District Judge. 10. In view of what has been stated above I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed with costs.