Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1402 (PNJ)

Ram Kishan v. Ghansham Dass

2002-12-18

J.S.NARANG

body2002
Judgment J.S.Narang, J. 1. The petitioner i.e. the landlord filed a petition under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction )Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. Admittedly, the petition has been filed on 19.4.1984, the rent was tendered at the rate of Rs. 160/- per month i.e., the increased rent in pursuant to the agreements which was arrived at between the parties which have been exhibited as Ex.R-1 and Ex.R.2. However, as per the claim of the petitioner the respondent tenant had tendered rent in excess to the extent of Rs. 160/-. This fact has been fairly admitted by the counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claimed that in pursuant to Section 8 of the Act, it is obligatory upon the tenant to pay the increase in the cess or tax which may be suffered by the property and that the same is not payable by the landlord. It is further provided in the proviso to Section 8 that the increase in rent shall be payable by the tenant from the date of despatch of the written notice of demand sent by the landlord under registered cover. It is argued that the notice Ex.A1 dated 23.3.1984 was sent to the tenant and it was received by the tenant on 4.4.1984. Resultantly, the tenant was liable to pay the increase in cess as arrears of rent. My attention has been drawn to para No.2 of the plaint under which the claim has been made by the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1982 upto 31.3.1984 amounting to Rs. 480. 3. The Rent Controller allowed the petition on the premises that it was obligatory upon the tenant to have paid the increased cess in pursuant to the demand raised by the petitioner-landlord vide notice Ex A1 Since the cess was required to be tendered as arrears of rent. Consequently, the petition was allowed. 4. The order dated 23.5.1986 passed by the Rent Controller was made subject matter of challenge before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal vide order dated 6.9.1986 and has set aside the order of the Rent Controller. Consequently, the petition was allowed. 4. The order dated 23.5.1986 passed by the Rent Controller was made subject matter of challenge before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal vide order dated 6.9.1986 and has set aside the order of the Rent Controller. It has been held by the Appellate Authority that the landlord can demand increase suffered in the cess or tax only after serving demand notice and that in the case at hand, the notice is stated to have been received by the tenant in the beginning of April, 1984 whereas the application for ejectment has been filed on 19.4.1984. Resultantly, the tenant was not liable to pay as claimed by the landlord. I find this finding is correct. At the time of filing of the application for ejectment the house tax prior to February, 1982 was not due. Thus, it could not be held that the tenant was in arrears of house tax. 5. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Appellate Authority has fallen into error while interpreting Section 8 of the Act. Pointed reference has been made to the proviso which reads as under;- "8. Increase of rent on account of payment of rates etc. of local authority. (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of the Act, a landlord shall be entitled to increase the rent of a building or rented land if after the commencement of the tenancy, a fresh rate, cess or tax is levied in respect of the building or rented land by any local authority, or if there is an increase in the amount of such a rate, cess or tax being levied at the commencement of this act. Provided that increase in rent shall not exceed the amount of any such rate, cess or tax or the amount of increase in such rate, cess or tax as the case may be; Provided further that such increase in rent shall be payable by the tenant from the date of despatch of the written notice of demand sent by the landlord under registered cover." 6. It is argued that the tenant is under obligation to pay the increase in the tax after the notice has been sent and that the arrears are payable from the date from which the increase in the cess has been made by the statutory authority. 7. I am afraid this argument is not sustainable. The proviso shown, is very clear in terms that the amount shall be payable from the date of the notice. Admittedly, the notice was received by the tenant on 4.4.1984 whereas the application filed for ejectment has been filed on 19.4.1984. Even otherwise, the perusal of the notice shows that it is absolutely vague, it has not been disclosed from which date the increase was promulgated by the statutory authority and how much is the amount due and payable by the tenant. The claim which has been made in the application is not at all sustainable. I find no reason to interfere in the order of the Appellate Authority.