Judgment In the writ petition of the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus on the respondent State to abide by the provisions of sections 132 (2) and 224 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act. 1951. 2. The Deputy Controller of Account Finance (Audit) Department Govt. of Bihar (respondent no. 8) negotiated to take the second floor of the house known as ‘Mandel Bhawan’ on payment of fair rent the petitioner offered the premises on fair rent besides such taxes which are payable by the tenant under the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, (vide latter Annexure 1). The Government vide Annexure 2, agreed to take the second floor of the aforesaid house on rent by stating that the rent is exclusive of taxes. The second floor of the house was thereafter occupied by the respondent State. At that time the tax payable was in dispute with the Patna Municipal Corporation and when that was settled the petitioner demanded as per provisions of section 132 (2) of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, the tenant occupying to pay the whole of the latrine tax and as envisaged upon section 224 of the said Act, the tenant is required to pay three-fourths of the water tax. It may be stated here that there two taxes are not the routine Municipal taxes payable by the landlord as the owner of the premises. It appears that the State Govt. turned down the demand vide Annexure 3 by stating that the rent payable by them was inclusive of all impositions. Thereafter in March, 1987 for the rental years 1986-87 the final sanction was for payment of fair rent only inclusive of all impositions. The petitioner assailed the said decision of the Government but to no affect. Hence the petitioner has been compelled to move this Court for enforcement of the tenants statutory liability under the Patna Municipal Corporation Act. 3. Mr. Madhup appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand contended that the fair rent is always inclusive of all taxes and therefore the landlord is entitled to nothing also but the fair rent. He further submitted that it is a pure money claim and therefore the petitioner should move the Civil Court for relief sought for in this writ petition. 4. He further submitted that it is a pure money claim and therefore the petitioner should move the Civil Court for relief sought for in this writ petition. 4. Having heard learned council for the parties we are of opinion that water tax and larine tax are the liabilities of the occupier of the building to the extent indicated under sections 132 (2) and 224 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act. The fair rent defined under section 2(e) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, dose not spell out exclusion of these statutory liabilities of the tenant. But section 3 of the Act, prohibits the landlord to collect premium salami fine or advance of more then one months rent or imposts if like nature. The statutory liability of the occupier is not included under section 3 of the said Act. In the first communication (Annexure 2) curiously the State took the premises on tenancy by clearly stating that the rent payable is exclusive of taxes, and now while in occupation of the building, it turns round and states that the rent payable by them is inclusive of taxes. It is well known that the rent payable is for occupation of the house, where as the water tax and latrine tax are service charges rendered by the Corporation to the occupier of the house and therefore it is the occupiers liability and that is clearly indicated by section 132(2) and 224 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act. Had the landlord contracted to let out the premises under an agreement that all imposts of whatever nature will be payable by him, including the service charges, the matter would have been different. But no such agreement has been produced by the tenant. On the contrary in the first document which was issued by the State while occupying the premises (Annexure 2) there was a clear representation to the landlord that the rent payable is exclusive of taxes. While in occupation of the building, the tenant unilaterally shakes off the responsibility earlier undertaken, even thought it continued to enjoy all the facilities. This is impermissible more so when the Government is a tenant. The Court expects a batter code of conduct on the part of the Government tenant. While in occupation of the building, the tenant unilaterally shakes off the responsibility earlier undertaken, even thought it continued to enjoy all the facilities. This is impermissible more so when the Government is a tenant. The Court expects a batter code of conduct on the part of the Government tenant. We are therefore of the opinion that the Government must pay the mandate of the patna Municipal Corporation Act, apart from the fair rent payable by the tenant to the landlord. 5. In the result, the Government is directed to disburse the enter arrears of latrine tax and three fourths of the water tax and to the landlord within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and they should keep on doing so till they continue to be the tenant of the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore, allowed with costs. Hearing fee Rs.250/-. Application allowed.