Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of two connected civil revisions which are Civil Revision 558 of 1996 and 2820 of 1998 since the dispute between the petitioner-landlord and the respondent-tenant in both cases centres around the rate of rent. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that Om Parkash was inducted as a tenant on the disputed property, which is a shop, on April 23, 1959 vide rent note Ex. AWl/A. The rent note contained a recital that the tenant undertook to pay rent, tax, house tax, property tax imposed by Government of India, State Government or Municipality. The rent of the premises was fixed at Rs. 80 per month. The sole question to be considered is whether the above rent was inclusive of house tax or not. In other words would the tenant be liable to pay rent of Rs. 80 per month and in addition thereto house tax would also be payable on the property or would the tenant get away by paying only Rs. 80 as rent irrespective of the rate of house tax and the periodic enhancement of tax. 3. On April, 9, 1991 Mateshwar Dayal filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 against Om Parkash pleading that the tenant was liable to be ejected for non payment of rent of Rs. 80 per month and house tax due from September 1, 1990 to February 28, 1991. The petition was contested by the tenant who pleaded that although the rate of rent was Rs. 80 per month yet he was not liable to pay house tax or property tax. The arrears of rent were tendered alongwith interest and costs. The learned Rent Controller framed issues and came to the conclusion that house tax was a part of rent and the tender made by the tenant on May 27, 1991 was valid. In appeal the learned appellate authority vide judgment dated October 9, 1995 upheld the finding of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. 4. In revision the main ground is that the Courts below had fallen in error in holding that after the fair rent of the disputed shop was fixed on August 14, 1989 at Rs. 80 per month, there remained no liability on the part of the tenant to further pay house tax. 4. In revision the main ground is that the Courts below had fallen in error in holding that after the fair rent of the disputed shop was fixed on August 14, 1989 at Rs. 80 per month, there remained no liability on the part of the tenant to further pay house tax. It was contended that fixation of fair rent did not alter the other conditions of the rent note and also did not create a fresh tenancy. 5. The facts of the connected Civil Revision 2820 of 1998 may also be noted at this stage. Mateshwar Dayal filed an application under Section 5 of the Act on November 11, 1995 before the learned Rent Controller pleading that Om Parkash was tenant under him at the rate of Rs. 80 per month and he was liable to pay tax @ 12 1/2% vide rent deed dated April 23, 1959, He also prayed for upward revision of rent and fixation of fair rent at the rate of Rs. 351.80 plus house tax. The application was contested by Om Parkash pleading that he was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 80 per month and that the fair rent had been fixed at this rate by the learned Rent Controller on August 14, 1989 and increase of rent was not permissible. The learned Rent Controller partly allowed the application and increased the fair rent from Rs. 80 to Rs. 213.60. However, the learned Rent Controller did not consider the tenants liability to pay house tax in addition to the rent fixed above. The learned appellate authority upheld the finding of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. 6. It would, therefore, be seen that the main dispute between the parties is whether fair rent fixed is inclusive of house lax or not. The learned Rent Controller while holding that tender of rent at the rate of Rs. 80 per month was valid, by implication, also held that this tender was inclusive of house tax and the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller on August 14, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 80 per month was also inclusive of tax. The learned Rent Controller while holding that tender of rent at the rate of Rs. 80 per month was valid, by implication, also held that this tender was inclusive of house tax and the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller on August 14, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 80 per month was also inclusive of tax. The learned appellate authority also found in favour of the tenant by concluding that the right to increase rent by demanding house tax after fixation of fair rent would be open to the landlord only if he showed that after fixation of fair rent there had been an increase in the house tax, secondly, that he opted to exercise the right in terms of Section 4 of the Act and thirdly, that he had pleaded about such exercise of right. Since the landlord had not pleaded that their had been increase in the house tax after fixation of fair rent and also had not made any demand, the point was decided in favour of the tenant by holding that fair rent fixed on August 14, 1989 meant that the liability to pay tax under the said order remained that of the landlord. 7. The pleadings in this case may be noticed. The landlord pleaded that the tenant had been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 80 per month exclusive of house tax and property tax. The landlord further pleaded that fair rent of the shop in dispute had been fixed on August 14, 1989 and the tenant had not paid rent from September 1, 1990 to February 28, 1991. In reply, the tenant pleaded that rate of rent was Rs. 80 but he was not liable to pay house and property tax. In replication, he landlord reiterated that the rate of Rs. 80 was fixed excluding house tax vide rent deed dated April 23, 1959 Ex.AWl/A and further pleaded that notice dated February 12, 1988 Ex.AW2/B regarding liability to pay house tax had also been served on the tenant. 8. The fate of these petitions shall depend upon the interpretation of rent deed and the order fixing the fair rent. 80 was fixed excluding house tax vide rent deed dated April 23, 1959 Ex.AWl/A and further pleaded that notice dated February 12, 1988 Ex.AW2/B regarding liability to pay house tax had also been served on the tenant. 8. The fate of these petitions shall depend upon the interpretation of rent deed and the order fixing the fair rent. As already mentioned above, the rent the Ex.AWl/A did contain a recital that the tenant undertook to pay the taxes, if the intention of the parties had been that the tenant would pay only the rent but not the axes then it could be said that the rent included all taxes but a proper interpretation of the rent note leads to only one conclusion that rent did not include any tax. Coming to the order fixing fair rent, reference must be made to the text of the order which is Ex. Rl. The application under Section 4 of the Act had been filed by the landlord in which he specifically pleaded that rent was Rs. 80 per month and the tenant respondent was liable to pay house tax and property tax. In reply the tenant pleaded that in a previous application under Section 4 of the Act fair rent had been fixed at Rs. 30 per month in 1975 and thereafter increased from time to time. Ultimately in 1983 it was increased from Rs. 70 to Rs. 80 per month by mutual consent. Issues which were framed were only with regard to what was the basic rent of the shop and what was its fair rent. There was no issue regarding the question whether rent was to be inclusive of tax or not. There were also other issues but these need not concern us. The decision on the two main issues was that there was no material for fixation of basic rent, therefore, there was no material for fixing of fair rent. However, the learned Rent Controller fixed the rent being received by the landlord as fair rent and thereby decided that fair rent would be Rs. 80 per month. It was never decided by the learned Rent Controller that this rent would be inclusive of tax. 9. However, the learned Rent Controller fixed the rent being received by the landlord as fair rent and thereby decided that fair rent would be Rs. 80 per month. It was never decided by the learned Rent Controller that this rent would be inclusive of tax. 9. The petitioner-landlord has relied upon a number of previous pleadings and statements of the parties in earlier proceedings under the Act to show that the tenant was in fact tendering rent plus tax and not rent inclusive of tax. In application dated April 15, 1988 the landlord had pleaded that rent was Rs. 80/- per month exclusive of tax and the tenant was in arrears of rent from August 1987 to February 1988 and also in arrears of house tax from June 1983 to February 1988. Copy of the application is Ex.AW2/E. The reply thereto was filed on July 28, 1988 wherein the tenant specifically replied that he had paid the claimed rent and house tax with interest to the applicant in court on May 30, 1988, Copy of the reply is Ex.AW3/A. Further reference may be made to the proceedings recorded on May 30, 1988. Copy of the statement of the landlord is Ex.AW2/I wherein he stated that he had received Rs. 560 as rent from August, 1987 to February 1988 and house tax of Rs. 458 from June, 1983 to February, 1988. He also stated that he had received interest as assessed by the Court. The actual tender had been made by the tenant through his statement Ex. AW2/J wherein he specifically stated that he had paid the rent for the above mentioned period as well as house tax separately for the above mentioned period. The tender had been accepted by the landlord. 10. Similarly, on a subsequent rent application being filed the tenant tendered rent at the rate of Rs. 80 per month and separately tendered house tax. Tenants statement is Ex.AW2/L. The acceptance of rent and house tax by the landlord is Ex.AW2/N. The separate assessment of rent and tax is given in Ex.AW2/0. The acceptance of the tender is Ex.AW2/Q. These proceedings were recorded on September 19, 1988 and related to no payment of rent from March to June 1988. 11. Tenants statement is Ex.AW2/L. The acceptance of rent and house tax by the landlord is Ex.AW2/N. The separate assessment of rent and tax is given in Ex.AW2/0. The acceptance of the tender is Ex.AW2/Q. These proceedings were recorded on September 19, 1988 and related to no payment of rent from March to June 1988. 11. Again on February 22, 1989 the tenant tendered rent from July to December 1988 and separately tendered assessment of rent, house tax and costs is Ex.AW2/S. This was accepted by the landlord vide statement Ex.AW2/T, whereupon the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 12. Likewise on November 28, 1990 the tenant tendered rent from September, 1989 to August 1990 at the rate of Rs. 80 per month and also separately tendered house tax. Tenants statement is Ex.AW2/W while the assessment by the court is AW2/X. The claim is Ex.AW2/V and the acceptance is Ex.AW2/Y. 13. Would any court require more concrete evidence than what has been detailed above to find in favour of the landlord that rent did not include tax, I should think not. The tenant has not been able to come up with any document, agreement or admission in his favour to establish that rent was inclusive of tax and, therefore, the tender made by him in the present case on May 27, 1991 of rent from September, 1990 to April, 1991 was of rent at the rate of Rs. 80 per month alongwith costs and interest as assessed by the court and it was inclusive of house tax. The tender had been accepted by the landlord under protest. Neither the learned Rent Controller nor the appellate authority delve deep into the documentary evidence described above while considering the validity of the tender under issue No.l. The learned Rent Controller held that the rent tendered by the tenant on May 27, 1991 was valid. This finding was affirmed by the appellate court. Both the courts had gravely erred in holding that the rent was inclusive of tax whereas this was not at all the case. 14. Consequently, C.R. 558 of 1996 is accepted,orders of both the courts are hereby set aside and the ejectment application filed by the petitioner landlord is allowed with costs. The respondent tenant is given, two months time to vacate the premises. 15. 14. Consequently, C.R. 558 of 1996 is accepted,orders of both the courts are hereby set aside and the ejectment application filed by the petitioner landlord is allowed with costs. The respondent tenant is given, two months time to vacate the premises. 15. Furthermore, C.R. 2820 of 1998 is also allowed to the extent that the tenant-respondent was liable to pay rent and also separately liable to pay tax as rent was exclusive of tax. Costs Rs. 2000/-.