JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—This is a revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act No. 9 of 1887) by the tenant-defendant against the judgment and decree passed by Judge, Small Causes Court dated 13 January 1989 in SCC Suit No. 4 of 1977, whereby the landlord’s suit for the eviction of the defendant-tenant and for the recovery of the rent has been decreed. 2. The brief facts of the present matter are enumerated below. 3. The respondent is a landlord of shop situated in Begpur Muglani, Belthiya Market, Gorakhpur. The landlord instituted a suit for the arrears of rent and eviction of the revisionist-tenant from the shop in question on the ground that the tenant-revisionist has made default in payment of the rent, the water tax and the house tax. The landlord sought the recovery of the rent of Rs. 3600/- alongwith 12% interest and a sum of Rs. 4030/- was demanded as water tax and house tax. 4. The landlord’s case was that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1970, therefore, the provisions of U.P The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) were not applicable. Initially the rent was at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month, which was enhanced to Rs. 150/- per month and from 1.1.1976 it was further enhanced to Rs. 200/- per month. The tenant has made a default of the payment of the rent from February 1976 to November 1976, which he failed to pay in spite of the repeated requests. The landlord sent a notice to quit on 10 December 1976, which was served upon the revisionist/tenant on 23 December 1976. By the said notice the tenancy of the revisionist was determined and a demand for arrears of the rent was made. It is stated that despite the service of the notice the tenant neither made the payment of the arrears of the rent nor he vacated the premises. 5. A written statement was filed by the revisionist-tenant. The stand taken by the tenant was that M/s Golden Gas Services is the tenant, but the said Firm has not been impleaded in the suit. 6. 5. A written statement was filed by the revisionist-tenant. The stand taken by the tenant was that M/s Golden Gas Services is the tenant, but the said Firm has not been impleaded in the suit. 6. The tenant admitted that a notice sent by the landlord was received by him on 10 December 1976 and on 15 January 1977 the tenant sent Rs. 2200/- arrears of rent through the Money Order but the landlord refused to accept the same. It was also averred that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act No. 4 of 1882) was invalid. 7. An additional WS was filed by the tenant wherein it was stated that the payment of water tax and house tax is not liability of the tenant and it was included in the rent. The suit was decided by the Small Causes Court on 29 November 1978, whereby the suit for eviction was dismissed but it was decreed for the recovery of the rent and the damages. 8. Aggrieved by the said order the landlord preferred Civil Revision No. 530 of 1979 before this Court, which was allowed on 17 April 1980 and the matter was remanded back for deciding the issue regarding the default, if any, committed by the revisionist-tenant in depositing the rent. 9. After the remand, an amendment application was filed raising the issue about the house tax and water tax, which was paid by the landlord. The said amendment was allowed on 27 September 1986 subject to deposit of a cost, which was accepted by the defendant. 10. In the amendment it was averred that the house was first time assessed in April 1976 and the Municipal Corporation by a Notice demanded a sum of Rs. 4032/- against water tax and house tax at the rate of 21% per annum. It is stated that landlord paid the said tax although it was tenant’s liability to make the payment of the said tax from April 1976 to March 1984. It was stated that it was agreed between the parties that the obligation to pay the water tax and the house tax was on the tenant-revisionist 11. The Judge, Small Causes Court has decreed the suit of the landlord and has passed the order for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3600/- as a rent and damages and Rs. It was stated that it was agreed between the parties that the obligation to pay the water tax and the house tax was on the tenant-revisionist 11. The Judge, Small Causes Court has decreed the suit of the landlord and has passed the order for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3600/- as a rent and damages and Rs. 4032/- as water tax and house tax and his eviction from the Shop. 12. The Judge Small Causes Court found that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable and the tenant was liable to pay the water tax and the house tax, which he has failed to pay. 13. I have heard learned Counsel for the defendant-revisionist and the learned Counsel for the landlord. 14. Learned Counsel for the revisionist Sri Vrindavan Mishra submits that Section 14 was substituted in U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by way of Amending Act No. 28 of 1976 with a view to safeguard the interest of the tenants. Since the defendant-revisionist was in occupation of the building with the consent of the landlord immediately before commencement of the Amending Act 1976, therefore, he is deemed to be an authorized tenant of such building. He contended that the tenant has become authorized tenant and a direction for his eviction for the shop in question being per-se illegal, is unsustainable. He further submitted that the defendant-revisionist has not committed any default in payment of rent. 15. Sri Misra strenuously urged that neither any demand in this regard was actually made by the plaintiff-respondent nor there was any evidence brought on the record by them in support of their claim, thus the Court below exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the defendant-revisionist to make the payment of the claimed amount of house tax and water tax. The said demand was made for the first time through an amendment application moved in the year 1986. This aspect of limitation was not considered by the Court below. 16. The said demand was made for the first time through an amendment application moved in the year 1986. This aspect of limitation was not considered by the Court below. 16. It was also contended that the provisions of the Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable as this Court in its judgment dated 17 April 1980 passed in Civil Revision No. 530 of 1979 had categorically held that the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable to the property in dispute and the said judgment became final between the parties thus the impugned judgment is contrary to the said finding, is illegal. 17. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Gopal Ji v. VI Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others, 2006(1) ARC 250. 18. Learned Counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that when this Court remanded the matter to the Court below, the law as it stood at that point of time was that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will apply on the expiry of ten years if the suit is pending, however the said law was overruled and it was declared in the case of Shri Kishan alias Krishan Kumar and others v. Manoj Kumar and others, (1998) 2 SCC 710 , that the Act would not be applicable if the matter is remained pending for more than ten years as the right of the landlord crystallized on the date of filing of the suit, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly applied judgment of the Supreme Court. He further submitted that the Court below has recorded a finding of fact that the tenant had not paid the house tax and water tax, which are the part of rent. The tenancy fixed was valid for 11 months. Therefore, the tenant has committed a default in the payment of rent also. 19. He further submitted that the building in dispute was for the first time assessed by Nagar Mahapalika, Gorakhpur in the month of April 1976 and the house tax and water tax became payable thereafter. The liability in this regard stood cast on the tenant under the law as well as under the agreement between the parties. The revisionist/tenant did not discharge her liability and as such the landlord-respondent had to deposit the entire arrears of house tax and water tax which were due. 20. The liability in this regard stood cast on the tenant under the law as well as under the agreement between the parties. The revisionist/tenant did not discharge her liability and as such the landlord-respondent had to deposit the entire arrears of house tax and water tax which were due. 20. After the deposit of house tax and water tax the plaintiff-landlord moved an application for the amendment in the plaint, which was rightly allowed. It was pointed out that the amendment was allowed subject to the payment of cost, which was paid by the plaintiff landlord and the defendant earlier received the same without any objection. 21. As regards the plea raised by learned Counsel for the tenant that the principles of res judicata would be attracted in the present case with regard to the fact of applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the learned Counsel for the landlord-respondent submits that while remitting the matter to the Trial Court this Court had not recorded any finding of fact on merit and it was remitted to the trial Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 22. I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 23. The parties are not on conflict of the fact that the shop was constructed in the year 1970 and it was let out to the revisionist-tenant by means of a rent note dated 31.8.1973. The Court below has framed an issue with regard to the applicability of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It has recorded a finding that the shop was constructed in the year 1970 and the first assessment was made in the year 1976. The tenant has not disputed the fact regarding the first assessment. 24. As regards, the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is concerned earlier the view of the Supreme Court was that if ten years have passed during the pendency of the proceeding the provision under the Act becomes applicable to the diminished premises, however this view was changed in the case of Sri Krishan alias Krishan Kumar (supra) and the Court took a view that the right of the landlord accrued on the date of filing of the suit, therefore, even the ten years are completed during the pendency of the suit, the Act would not be applicable. The view taken by the Supreme Court as per material, is being extracted herein below : “8. There is no provision in the Act taking away the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to dispose of a suit validly instituted. There is also no provision preventing the execution of a decree passed in such a suit. Section 13(1) does not expressly refer to execution of a decree for possession. On a reading of all the provisions of the Act, it is evident that it has not prevented a Civil Court from adjudicating the rights accrued and the liabilities incurred prior to the date on which the Act became applicable to the building in question. If the Legislature had intended to take away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide a suit which had been validly instituted, it would have been worded differently. The purpose for which the exemption is granted statutorily under Section 1 (3) is to encourage construction of new buildings. That purpose would be defeated if the owner of the building is deprived of his right to get possession of the building unless he gets a decree within a period of ten years from the date of its completion. In fact the logical consequence of the argument of the appellants if accepted would be that even if a decree is obtained by the landlord within ten years from its completion it cannot be executed after the expiry of the said period of ten years as such execution would not be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is common knowledge that a proceeding in a Civil Court for recovery of immovable property could be dragged on by the defendant easily for a period of ten years or more and thereby and tenant whose tenancy had been terminated validly before the suit would successfully make the proceeding infructuous by prolonging the litigation. The argument of the appellants cannot be accepted as otherwise the purpose of exemption would get defeated.” 25. In my opinion the Court below has rightly applied the principles of the law laid down in the aforestated case. The view taken by the Court below that the Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable in the present case, does not suffer any illegality. 26. In my opinion the Court below has rightly applied the principles of the law laid down in the aforestated case. The view taken by the Court below that the Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable in the present case, does not suffer any illegality. 26. As regards the submission of learned Counsel for the revisionist that the tenant is entitled for the benefit of Section 14 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 I find it difficult to accept the said submission for the two reasons; firstly when the Act itself for the reasons stated above is not applicable, the benefit of Section 14 of the said Act does not arise. Secondly this issue was never raised by the tenant neither in its written statement nor it was pressed before the Court below, therefore, for the first time this issue cannot be permitted to be raised. 27. The submission of learned Counsel for the revisionist that this Court previously while remanding the Civil Revision filed by the landlord being Civil Revision No. 530 of 1979 has observed that the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable. It is true that the said view was on the basis of the law laid down in the case of Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, (1984) 3 SCC 352 and the judgement of Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motors and General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770 , however the Supreme Court has changed the said view in the case of Sri Krishan alias Krishan Kumar (supra), therefore, the plea of the res judicata would not be applicable in the present case. Moreover, while remitting the case to the Court below, this Court had observed that the Court below will decide the matter in accordance with law. The subsequent decision of the Supreme Court has been followed by the Court below, therefore, there is no error in the said finding of the Court below. 28. In addition to the above, the Court below has decreed the suit primarily on the ground of the default made by the tenant in respect of the payment of the water tax and house tax. It is a common ground of the parties that the tenant had not paid the water tax and the house tax and it was paid by the landlord. 29. It is a common ground of the parties that the tenant had not paid the water tax and the house tax and it was paid by the landlord. 29. The rent note does not provide that the water tax and house tax shall be part of the rent. Admittedly, the tenant has not paid the said tax. Even if it is assumed that the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable the Section 7 of the said Act enjoins that the tenant shall be liable to pay the landlord in addition thereto and as a part of rent, the water tax, twenty-five per cent of every such enhancement in house tax made after the commencement of this Act. Section 7 reads as under; “7. Liability to pay taxes.—Subject to any contract in writing to the contrary, but notwithstanding anything contained 1[in Section 149 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916] 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.” 30. Learned Counsel for the revisionist tenant failed to point out any agreement between the parties contrary to the said law. 31. I find that the Court below has recorded a finding of fact that the tenant has failed to pay the house tax and water tax thus he has committed default in the payment of rent. I do not find any error in the said finding. 32. For the reasons aforestated the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court does not warrant any interference under the revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act. The revision lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. 33. I do not find any error in the said finding. 32. For the reasons aforestated the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court does not warrant any interference under the revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act. The revision lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. 33. No order as to costs. ————