Parties in both these writ petitions are common and some questions of facts are also common. Therefore, these petitions may be disposed of by the common judgment.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing, immediately.

3. Admitted, facts are that the present petitioner is the tenant and deceased Surajmal was the landlord. Respondents in both the petitions are legal heirs of said Surajmal. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises admeasuring about 1500 sq. ft. on 1/4/1996 and he started his Nursing Home in name and style as "Shubham Nursing Home". As per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner was to pay amount of Rs.3,0001- towards rent for use and occupation of the premises, Rs.2,500/- towards the facility of Well and uninterrupted water supply to the Nursing Home and Rs.2,5OO/towards service charges for fittings and fixtures. The petitioner made this payment up to 31/3/1998. Surajmal, who was the landlord, had filed two suits against the petitioner/ defendant. Civil Suit No. 194 of 1999 was filed by him for recovery of amount of Rs.l,12,001.52 Ps. towards arrears of rent, service charges, water charges and Corporation taxes. According to him, as per the agreement, the rent was to increase by 5% after two years and therefore, the defendant/petitioner was liable to pay rent for the use and occupation of the premises at the rate ofRs.3,150/-, Rs.2,625/-towards water charges and Rs.2,625/-towards service charges for fittings and fixtures. Besides this, the defendant is also liable to pay corporation taxes. According to the plaintiff, for the period from 1/4/1998 to 30/611999, the defendant was to pay rent at the rate of Rs.8,400/- per month on all three heads and thus amount of Rs.l,26,0001- was to be paid by him. Besides this, amount of Rs.64, 101.22 ps. was due towards Corporation taxes. He also claimed amount or Rs.l,000/- towards notice charges. According to him, the total amount due was Rs.l,91,801.22 Ps. However, out of that, the defendant had paid amount of Rs.79,800/- and hence the claim of Rs.LI2,001.22 Ps ..

4. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and denied that the water charges were increased by 5% from 11 411998. He also contended that water supply was disconnected from February, 1998 about which a notice was issued by him to the landlord. He also contended that even though service charges for filling and fixtures were fixed, the furniture was not supplied and therefore, he is not liable to pay the same. He also denied that he was liable to pay the Corporation taxes.

5. After herring the evidence of both the parties, the trial court rejected the claim on account of corporation tax and decreed the suit for payment of Rs,46,200/- being the difference in the rent on all the three heads and the actual payment. That judgment and decree was challenged by the defendant in Reg. Civil Appeal No.8 of 2003. The appeal was partly allowed. The appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court that there were no agreement to pay Corporation tax. The appellate court also came to conclusion that the landlord had stopped the water supply and the tenant was required to purchase water from outside and therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to claim the water charges. The appellate court, however, concurred with the trial court that the defendant/tenant is liable to pay amount of Rs.3,150/- towards rent of premises and Rs.2,6501- towards the service charges on account of furniture and fixtures supplied to him. The contention of the tenant that the furniture was not supplied to him as per the agreement came to be rejected. In the result, the decree passed by the trial court came to be modified and the appellate court directed the tenant to pay amount of Rs.6,825/- being the arrears after deduction of payment already made by him. That judgment and decree have been chal