Back
1980 Supreme(P&H) 335
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.C.Mittal, J.
Isri Devi
Versus
Mahabir Parshad
Civil Revision No. 1874 of 1980,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 25, 1980
The landlord is entitled to increase the rent by the levy of house tax, and the amount of rebate earned by the landlord or penal interest charged is not relevant.
Headnote:
EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 9 - INTERPRETATION - LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INCREASE RENT BY LEVY OF HOUSE TAX - AMOUNT OF REBATE EARNED BY LANDLORD OR PENAL INTEREST CHARGED NOT RELEVANT.
Fact of the Case:
Landlord filed an ejectment application against the tenant for arrears of rent and house tax. The tenant deposited the arrears of rent, interest, costs, and house tax. The landlord withdrew the amounts, and the ejectment application became infructuous. The tenant filed applications under Section 19 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for ordering prosecution of the landlord on the ground that she had withdrawn house tax at a higher rate than what was actually paid.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the landlord was entitled to increase the rent by the levy of house tax, and the amount of rebate earned by the landlord or penal interest charged was not relevant. The court interpreted Section 9 of the Act to mean that the rent would stand increased by the levy of house tax and would not stand reduced either because of the rebate earned by the landlord nor would stand increased because of the levy of penal interest.
Issues: Whether the landlord was entitled to increase the rent by the levy of house tax, and whether the amount of rebate earned by the landlord or penal interest charged was relevant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the intention of the legislature was to increase the rate of rent by the levy of house-tax, and this was never to fluctuate. The court reasoned that if the payment by the landlord has to be taken as the house tax, then the same would vary under three situations: when the payment is made within time to earn the rebate, when it is paid after that date but before the date from which the penal interest would start, or when it is paid beyond the last date with penal interest added. The court found that this would lead to an anomaly, and that the only reasonable interpretation of Section 9 of the Act was that the rent would stand increased by the levy of house tax and would not stand reduced or increased due to the rebate or penal interest.
Final Decision: The court allowed both revision petitions, set aside the order of the Rent Controller, and dismissed the applications filed by the tenant under Section 19 of the Act.
G.C.Mittal, J.
1. The admitted facts of the case are that the house tax on the property in dispute is Rs. 156.75 and the landlord earned a rebate of 10% by paying it before the due date, and after rebate the annual house tax in Rs. 141.08.
2. Smt. Isri Devi landlord filed an ejectment application on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent during certain months in 1978-79, besides the house tax. The tenant-tendered the arrears of rent as also a sum of Rs. 180/- towards house tax in advance, besides interest and costs. The landlord withdrew the arrears of rent, interest and costs and a sum of Rs. 156.75 towards house tax and the ejectment application become infructuous. During the year 1979-80, the tenant was again in arrears of rent and the landlord filed another application for ejectment on that ground. The tenant deposited the arrears of rent, interest and costs, as also Rs. 156.75 as the house-tax. The landlord withdrew those amounts and the ejectment application against became infructuous.
3. Thereafter, the tenant filed two separate applications under Section 19 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Rent Controller in the aforesaid ejectment applications for ordering prosecution of the landlord on the ground that she had actually paid the house tax amounting to Rs. 141.08 for the year 1978-79 and 1979-80, where she had withdrawn the house-tax at the rate of 156.75. Both the applications were opposed by the landlord on the ground that the rate of house-tax was Rs. 156.75 and merely because the landlord earned rebate of 10% by depositing the same within a fortnight of the issue of the bill, that did not make out any ground for her prosecution. The Rent Controller, by order dated 28th July, 1980, allowed both the applications had ordered the prosecution of the landlord. The landlord has come up in the civil revision Nos. 1874 and 1875 of 1980, from the aforesaid orders.
4. Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal, appearing for the landlord has contended that a reading of Section 9 of the Act would show that the landlord has entitled to increase the rent by adding the amount of house tax levied on the demised premises and it was not disputed that the house tax was Rs. 156.75. He further argued that a reading of Section 9 does not show that the actual amount of house-tax paid has to be added but it talks only of the levy of house tax and since it is not disputed that the levy of house-tax was Rs. 156.75, therefore, the landlord correctly withdrew the amount from the court and as such was not liable for prosecution.
5. Shri Bansal has further elaborated his point that if the levy of house-tax was Rs. 156-75, then it was never intended by the Legislature while enacting Section 9 of the Act that the rent could vary in spite of the fact that the levy of house-tax continues to be the same. To illustrate, he stated that if during a year the landlord does not earn the rebate of 10% by paying the house-tax in advance, then the rent would be the agreed rent plus Rs. 156.75, and in a year in which the landlord has paid the house tax in advance and has earned the rebate of 10% the rate of rent would be the agreed rent plus Rs. 141.08 (the house tax after the rebate of 10%.
6. In order to appreciate the point, Section 9(1) of the Act deserves to be reproduced :-
"9. Increase of rent on account of payment of rates etc; of local authority but rent not to be increased on account of payment of other taxes etc. : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act a landlord shall be entitled to increase the rent of a building or rented land if after the commencement of this Act a fresh rate, cess or tax is levied in respect of the building or rented land by any local authority, or if there is an increase in the amount of such a rate, cess or tax being levied at the commencement of the Act : Provided that the increase in rent shall not exceed the amount of an
