A later and special provision prevails over a general provision.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition hasbeen filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (No. 9 of 1887) against the judgment and decree of Shri B. B. Gupta,judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi, dated 4/10/1972, in Suitno. 3343 of 1972.

( 2 ) THE said suit was filed by the respondent herein, Shri Mohd. Usman, for recovery of Rs. 561. 75 p. alleging that the petitioner herein,shri Ganga Ram, was a statutory tenant under him on a monthly rentof Rs. 60, and that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi assessed therateable value of the house No. 369 at Rs. 1,720 and imposed othercharges like water tax, scavanging tax, fire tax, etc. amounting tors. 111. 80 p. It was also alleged in the plaint that the petitioner (tenant) had sublet the premises in his tenancy to three persons whowere paying rent to him amounting to Rs. 78. 26 p. per month, thatthe said amount was taken into consideration by the Corporation indetermining the rateable value of the premises, and that the Corporation determined the rateable value on the basis that the premises indispute was fetching rent at the rate of Rs. 60 plus Rs. 78,26 p. Rs. 138. 26 p. It was submitted that the respondent (plaintiff) wasentitled under Section 121 (1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Actto recover from the petitioner (tenant) the difference between theamount of the property tax levied on the property and the amount oftax which would be leviable upon the premises if the said tax was calculated only on the amount of rent of Rs. 60 per month paid by thepetitioner (tenant) to the respondent without taking into considerationthe such of Rs. 78. 26 p. that was paid by the subtenants to the petitioner (tenant), that the respondent thus paid an extra sum ofrs. 561. 75 p. to the Municipal Corporation for the period 1969to 1972, and that he was entitled to recover the same from the petitioner. The petitioner (tenant) contested the suit raising various pleas.

( 3 ) THE suit was heard by Shri B. B. Gupta, Judge, Small Causecourt, Delhi. The respondent had earlier filed a similar suit forrecovery of extra tax from the petitioner (tenant) for an earlier period,and the same was decreed. A Civil Revision was preferred TO by thepetitioner (tenant) to this Court against the said judgment and decreeand the same was dismissed by the judgment which has been markedas Exahibit P. 4 in the present suit. Observing that a perusal of thesaid judgment shows that the same pleas were taken by the petitiofier (tenant) in the said earlier suit and had been overruled by the Highcourt, the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the present suit. Thepetitioner (tenant) has filed the present Civil Revision Petition againstthat judgment and decree.

( 4 ) THE present Civil Revision came up for hearing before B. C. Misra J. in the first instance. The Learned Judge considered thatthe provision involved the interpretation of Section 121 of the Delhimunicipal Corporation Act and, therefore, the Municipal Corporationof Delhi should be heard. He accordingly issued notice to the Corporation to show cause why it should not be impleaded in the Revision. It appears from the record that though the learned Judge did notsubsequently pass any order impleading the Corporation, Mr. C. L. Chaudhry, Advocate, entered appearance for the Corporation and washeard by the learned Judge at the time of the hearing of the Revisionpetition. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, and Mr. Chaudhry for the Corporation, the learned Judge notedthat while Section 7 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act provides thatthe landlord shall not recover from the tenant, by increase in rent orotherwise, the amount of any tax on building or land imposed in respectof the premises occupied by the tenant. Section 121 (1) of the Delhimunicipal Corporation Act enables the landlord to recover from thetenant any excess of the amount of house tax which has been leviedon the building and which is in excess of the amount whic