Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The petitioner (tenant) has filed the present revision against the judgment of the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, Ambala dated 22.9.1981 by which the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the shop in dispute on the ground of the non-payment of the house tax. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Smt. Dhan Devi landlady filed petition for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the shop situated in the Municipal limits of City Yamuna Nagar under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, on various grounds, one of them being that the tenant is in arrears of rent. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition filed by the landlady on all counts. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority. In the appeal filed, the Appellate Authority held that as the house tax is part of the rent and the same has not been paid by the tenant, therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted for non-payment of rent. 3. In the revision, it has been argued by Ms. Alka Satin, counsel for the tenant-petitioner that firstly the Rent Controller has held that the rent was paid in excess of the entire rent due and therefore, any short fall could have been adjusted against house tax. It has next been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the house tax was never specified by the landlady as to bow much house tax is due from the tenant and in the absence of any particular amount having been stated, the eviction of the petitioner could not have been ordered by the Appellate Authority. It is contended that even a notice under Section 8 of the Rent Act has not been issued to the petitioner. 4. In reply Mr. Mamli has contended that notice under Section 8 was duly served upon the landlady and the copy of the notice is Ex.A-2. It is contended that in the notice it has specifically been stated that tenant is liable to pay house tax at the rate of 12% from 1972 onwards. Mr. 4. In reply Mr. Mamli has contended that notice under Section 8 was duly served upon the landlady and the copy of the notice is Ex.A-2. It is contended that in the notice it has specifically been stated that tenant is liable to pay house tax at the rate of 12% from 1972 onwards. Mr. Mamli has also relied on the judgments in 1982 R.C.R. 558, and 1981 R.C.R. 496, to contend that once a notice is sent then there is sufficient compliance of Section 8 and in the absence of the tenant not paying the house tax eviction is to be ordered. 5. I have perused the notice Ex.A-2 and find that no amount of house tax due from the tenant has been specified in the notice. In the absence of any specific amount having been mentioned, the Appellate Authority ought to have calculated the house tax due and thereafter given an opportunity to the tenant to deposit the same within a stipulated period. The notice with regard to the payment of house tax cannot be gauge. A specific amount has to be mentioned so that the tenant is not taken by surprise. In District Khadi Gram Udyog Karyakarta Sangh, Bathinda v. Ved Parkash, (1999-3)123 P.L.R. 538, it has been held that the notice is to be specified and it should be mentioned from which date the house tax is to be paid. The notice which does not indicate how much house tax was due from the tenant has to be construed as a vague notice and before any order of ejectment can be passed against the tenant, the Court has to give an opportunity to the tenant to pay the house lax. In the notice issued by the landlady to the tenant only percentage has been mentioned whereas no exact amount has been claimed. Thus it was incumbent from the Appellate Authority to determine the house tax and give an opportunity to the tenant to pay the arrears of house tax. The same having not been done in the present case, therefore, the eviction of the petitioner cannot be upheld. 6. Thus it was incumbent from the Appellate Authority to determine the house tax and give an opportunity to the tenant to pay the arrears of house tax. The same having not been done in the present case, therefore, the eviction of the petitioner cannot be upheld. 6. In view of the above, the order dated 22.9.1981 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ambala is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Appellate Authority, Ambala to determine the house tax due from the petitioner-tenant and given the petitioner-tenant an opportunity to deposit the same. In case the house tax is not deposited by the tenant, then in that event, the Appellate Authority can order the eviction of the petitioner. The party shall appear before the Appellate Authority, Ambala on 2.3.2005.