SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(P&H) 178

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehar Singh, J.
Kirpal Kaur
Versus
Bhagwant Rai Of Patiala
Civil Revision No. 734 of 1967,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 28, 1968

A landlord can increase rent to the extent of house tax levied after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, without the need for an application to the Rent Controller. The increase in rent is effective from the date the landlord exercises the right to increase rent under Section 9.

Headnote:

EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 9 - RENT INCREASE DUE TO HOUSE TAX LEVY - NO REQUIREMENT FOR APPLICATION TO RENT CONTROLLER - EFFECTIVE FROM DATE OF NOTICE - ARREARS OF RENT CLAIMED AS HOUSE TAX PRIOR TO NOTICE DATE NOT ALLOWABLE.

Fact of the Case:

Landlord sought to evict tenant for non-payment of rent, including arrears of house tax. The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority dismissed the eviction application, holding that the landlord could not claim house tax as part of rent without applying to the Rent Controller for an increase in rent.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Section 9 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, allows a landlord to increase rent to the extent of house tax levied after the commencement of the Act, without the need for an application to the Rent Controller. The increase in rent is effective from the date the landlord exercises the right to increase rent under Section 9.

Issues: 1. Whether a landlord can claim house tax as part of rent without applying to the Rent Controller for an increase in rent? 2. Whether the increase in rent due to house tax levy is effective from the date of the levy or from the date the landlord exercises the right to increase rent?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 9 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, does not require a landlord to apply to the Rent Controller for an increase in rent due to house tax levy. The increase in rent is automatic and effective from the date the landlord exercises the right to increase rent under Section 9. 2. The increase in rent due to house tax levy is effective from the date the landlord exercises the right to increase rent under Section 9, not from the date of the levy.

Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the authorities below and remanded the case to the Rent Controller to dispose of on merits in light of the observations made.

Judgment

Mehar Singh, J.

1. The demised property known as Serai Albel Singh is statute at Patiala. It was the property of Kuldip Singh who had let it to Bhagwant Rai respondent for an annual rental of Rs. 2,850/- sometime in the year 1954. In the year 1957 the Patiala Municipality levied house-tax within its municipal limits. In the same year the rent of the demised property was raised from Rs. 2,850/- to Rs. 3,000/- per annum, thus making an increase in the rent of Rs. 450/- per annum. After the death of Kuldip Singh his widow Kirpal Kaur applicant has come to be the owner of the demised property under a gift from her deceased husband Kuldip Singh.

2. On March 11, 1966, she gave a notice to the respondent that the demised property had been assessed by the Patiala Municipality to an annual amount of house-tax at Rs. 1308.88 Paise and saying that "You are, therefore, liable under the law to pay increased rent to the extent of Rs. 3300/- plus Rs. 1308.88 Paise as house-tax, totally Rs. 4608.88 Paise. Please note that in future, so long as you are a tenant in the said building, you will be liable to pay Rs. 4608.88 Paise as the annual rental of the property instead of Rs. 3300/- originally fixed and in case of non-payment of the same you will be liable to ejectment on that account." The notice further claimed arrears of house-tax at the rate as above for the years 1956-57 to 1961-62 within fifteen days of the date of the notice, otherwise threatening proceeding for eviction of the respondent. In reply the respondent denied his liability to pay any house-tax. The consequence was that the applicant made an application for eviction of the respondent from the demised property under Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act 3 of 1949), on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent by the respondent.

3. The first date of hearing of the eviction application was on July 19, 1966. On that date the respondent paid Rs. 1650/- towards arrears of rent, Rs. 412.50 Paise as house-tax from the date of the notice, that is to say March 11, 1966 to the date of the eviction application on May 16, 1966, Rs. 14.25 Paise as interest on the arrears, and costs of the eviction application as assessed by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have concurred in dismissing the eviction application of the applicant against the respondent on the ground that the applicant cannot claim the amount of house-tax, as part of rent, under Section 9 of the Act from the respondent unless and until he makes an application to Rent Controller for increase of rent to the extent of the amount of house-tax and obtains an order to that effect, which obviously the applicant has not done in this case. This is a revision application against the order of the Appellate Authority by the applicant.

4. The provision as to increase of rent on account of levy of house-tax is contained in Section 9 of the Act, which section reads :-

"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 any such rate, cess or tax or the amount of the increase in such rate, cess or tax, as the case may be.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any contract no landlord shall recover from his tenant the amount of any tax or any portion thereof in respect of any building or rented land occupied by such tenant by any increase in the amo



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top