Back
1969 Supreme(P&H) 185
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.S.Narula, J.
Baldev Kishan
Versus
Bir Bhan
Civil Revision No. 183 of 1969,
Decided On : DECEMBER 18, 1969
The expression "the rent due" in section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 does not include the amount of house tax levied on the demised premises, where the tenant had agreed to pay the house tax in addition to the rent, but the house tax was neither claimed nor recovered for about six years though rent was being paid regularly during that period.
Headnote:
EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 13(2)(I), 9 - RENT - HOUSE-TAX - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE - REIMPOSITION OF HOUSE-TAX - NOTICE OF INCREASE OF RENT - LIABILITY OF TENANT - ENHANCEMENT OF RENT.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord and tenant entered into a rent agreement in 1957, specifying a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. The agreement also stipulated that the tenant would pay house tax. House tax was levied by the municipality in 1960-61, but the tenant did not pay it, though he continued to pay the agreed rent. In 1962, house tax was suspended in Patiala but reimposed in 1964-65. The landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant in 1965, claiming non-payment of rent, including house tax. The Rent Controller and appellate authority ordered eviction of the tenant.
Finding of the Court:
1. The expression "the rent due" in section 13(2)(i) of the Act does not include the amount of house tax levied on the demised premises, where the tenant had agreed to pay the house tax in addition to the rent, but the house tax was neither claimed nor recovered for about six years though rent was being paid regularly during that period. 2. The provisions of section 9 of the Act would apply to a case where house tax had been agreed to be paid, but had neither been claimed nor recovered for about six years though rent was being paid regularly during that period and, thereafter, the house tax was suspended in locality but reimposed a few years later and claim for such tax was made for the first time in an application brought under section 13(2) (i) of the Act for eviction of the tenant. 3. In a case of the type referred to in Question No. (2) above, it is necessary to furnish to the tenant details of the tax levied and of the claim of the landlord and give the tenant an opportunity to pay the same before filing a claim for eviction on ground of non-payment of rent because of the house-tax not having been paid.
Issues: 1. Whether the expression the rent due used in sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act includes the amount of house-tax levied on the demised premises under section 61 of the Punjab Municipal Act in a case where the tenant had agreed in the rent-deed to pay the house-tax in addition to the rent ? 2. Whether the provisions of section 9 of the Act would or would not apply to a case where house-tax had been agreed to be paid, but had neither been claimed nor recovered for about six years though rent was being paid regularly during that period and, thereafter, the house-tax was suspended in locality but reimposed a few years later and claim for such tax was made for the first time in an application brought under section 13(2) (i) of the Act for eviction of the tenant ? 3. Whether in a case of the type referred to in Question No. (2) above, it is necessary to furnish to the tenant details of the tax levied and of the claim of the landlord and give the tenant an opportunity to pay the same before filing a claim for eviction on ground of non-payment of rent because of the house-tax not having been paid ?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The term "rent" is comprehensive enough to include all payments agreed by the tenant to be made to his landlord for the use and occupation not only of the building and its appurtenances but also of furnishings, electric installations and other amenities agreed between the parties to be provided by and at the cost of the landlord. 2. If the figure or amount of house-tax is named in a rent-note or the lease-deed in order merely to show the break-up of the total amount which is payable periodically by the tenant to the landlord in respect of the demised premises it would no doubt be a part of the rent. 3. Even if the amount is not mentioned in the agreement between a landlord and a tenant, but it is clearly stipulated that the rent for the demised premises would be a specified amount plus the house-tax levied on the premises from time to time, the amount of house-tax if otherwise permitted by the rent control legislation to recovered would form part of rent. 4. Section 9 of the Act does not make the payment of house-tax a liability of the tenant and the provision merely permits a lawful increase in the rent payable by a tenant if the landlord wishes to effect increase. 5. The operation of section 9(1) of the Act is not automatic. It is merely an enabling provision which entitles the landlord to increase rent of premises covered by the Act if a rate, cess or tax in respect of the building is levied after the commencement of the Act. 6. The amount which is recoverable by way of increase from a tenant under section 9 of the Act, can either be made the liability of the tenant by mutual agreement or by serving on the tenant a proper notice of increase of rent.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the orders of the appellate authority and the Rent Controller were set aside, and the application of the landlord for the eviction of the tenant was dismissed with costs throughout.
R.S.Narula, J.
1. The following three questions of interpretation and scope of the relevant provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Act III of 1949), hereinafter called the Act, have arisen in this case in the circumstances hereinafter detailed :
1) Whether the expression the rent due used in sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act includes the amount of house-tax levied on the demised premises under section 61 of the Punjab Municipal Act in a case where the tenant had agreed in the rent-deed to pay the house-tax in addition to the rent ?
2) Whether the provisions of section 9 of the Act would or would not apply to a case where house-tax had been agreed to be paid, but had neither been claimed nor recovered for about six years though rent was being paid regularly during that period and, thereafter, the house-tax was suspended in locality but reimposed a few years later and claim for such tax was made for the first time in an application brought under section 13(2) (i) of the Act for eviction of the tenant ?
3) Whether in a case of the type referred to in Question No. (2) above, it is necessary to furnish to the tenant details of the tax levied and of the claim of the landlord and give the tenant an opportunity to pay the same before filing a claim for eviction on ground of non-payment of rent because of the house-tax not having been paid ?
The present litigation relates to shop No. 1057/4 situated in Sheranwala Gate, Patiala. This shop was let out by Bir Bhan, respondent No. 1, hereinafter called the landlord, on October 31, 1957, with effect from November, 1 in that year, on the basis of the rent-deed, Exhibit A. W. 2/1, executed by Baldev Kishan petitioner, whom I will call the tenant in this judgment. The period of tenancy was fixed at 11-1/2 months. Clause 2 of the rent-deed, the original of which is in Urdu language and script, when freely translated into English, would read -
"2. The rent has been fixed at Rs. 25/- per month but the rent is separate from the electricity charges."
Clause 5 of the rent note executed by the tenant, when similarly translated into English, would read -
"5. Property-tax will be paid by the owner. House-tax would be paid by me."
The period of the tenancy contemplated by exhibit A. W. 2/1 came to an end in the middle of September, 1958. Thereafter, it continued as a statutory monthly tenancy. Though house-tax was being imposed by the Patiala Municipal Committee at least in 1960-61 (at a rate calculated on the basis of Rs. 20/- having been determined as rental value of the property) no house-tax was, in fact, claimed from or paid by the tenant though he admittedly continued to pay Rs. 25/- per month as rent. With effect from April 1, 1962, imposition of house tax in Patiala was suspended. It appears from the evidence on the record (statement of Rajinder Kumar A. W. 1) that the imposition of house-tax was stopped in Patiala in 1962, but the tax was reimposed in 1964-65. According to Mr. Mohinderjit Singh Sethi, learned counsel for the defendant, house-tax had been abolished or suspended in Patiala from April 1, 1962, to March 31, 1965, but was reimposed with effect from April 1, 1965. He is, no doubt, supported in this context by the observation of the learned Chief Justice in paragraph 5 of his Lordships judgment, dated November 28, 1968, in Kirpal Kaur v. Bhagwant Rai, 1969 RCR 86 at page 89. The learned Chief Justice has observed there that the house-tax was levied in Patiala between 1956 and 1961, but the city was exempted from the levy of house-tax from 1962 to 1964 and then it was again levied from the year 1965. This is consistent with the pleadings of the parties, the admission in the application for eviction and the evidence produced by the landlord himself at the trial of this suit. Rajinder Kumar A.W. 1 has deposed during the course of his statement before the Rent Controller that house-tax had been reimposed in Patiala from 1964-65.
2. On the re-imposit
