A landlord can only claim an increase in rent on account of house tax if he has exercised his right to increase the rent under Section 9 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, by serving a valid notice to the tenant.

V.K.JHANJI, J.

1. This will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 1006, 1007, 1008 and 1009 of 1981 preferred by the tenants. Since the facts of these four revision petitions are common, I propose to dispose them of by one judgement. The facts of this case have been taken from C.R. No. 1006 of 1981.

2. The dispute between the petitioner (tenant herein) and the respondent (Landlord herein) relates to the premises known as Air Lines Hotel and Restaurant - a three storeyed building-situated in the main bazar of Pathankot. According to the landlord, the premises were let out to the tenant at the rate of Rs. 1600.00 per month and the tenancy starts from 28th of each month. However, in the earlier litigation, i.e. Civil Revisions Nos. 206 to 209 of 1979, the matter with regard to commencement of tenancy was decided on the basis of statement made by the counsel for the landlord that the tenancy starts from 16th of each month. These revision petitions arise out of different ejectment applications filed by the landlord for the ejectment of the tenants. In the ejectment petition No. 28 of 1975, the landlord claimed ejectment of his tenant on the ground of nonpayment of rent w.e.f. 28th of January 1975 to 28th of May, 1975 at the rate of Rs. 1600.00 per month. In the petition, house-tax was also claimed and was stated to be part of the rent. Similarly in the ejectment petitions Nos. 67 of 1975, 32 of 1976 and 60 of 1976, rent for the period from 28th of May, 1975 to 27th of November 1975, 28th of October, 1975 to 27th of May, 1976, and 28th of March, 1976 to 27th of October, 1976, respectively, was claimed. In all these petitions, rent was claimed at the rate of Rs. 1600.00 per month as well as the house-tax which was alleged to have been paid by the landlord. In all the three petitions namely ejectment petitions Nos. 28 of 1975, 67 of 1975 and 32 of 1976, the tenant on the first date of hearing, tendered the entire arrears of rent as well as the interest and costs so assessed by the Rent Controller. However, house-tax was not paid. In ejectment petition No. 60 of 1976, the rent as claimed as well as the interest and costs were tendered and paid to the landlord but house-tax was paid w.e.f. 15th of June, 1976. Apart from claiming ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent, the landlord also claimed ejectment on the ground that the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. As far as the second ground is concerned, the same is no longer material since there is no finding against the tenant in respect of second ground i.e. impairment of value and utility of the premises. The only ground that survives is of non-payment of rent on the first date of hearing.

3. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority ordered the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the tenant failed to tender/pay the house-tax as claimed by the landlord on the first date of hearing. All the four petitions were decided by the Rent Controller on 26th of November, 1979 and the appeals of the tenants were dismissed by the appellate Authority on 2-3-1981.

4. In the favour petitions, the only controversy involved is as to whether the house-tax claimed by the landlord in the ejectment petition was part of the rent or not.

5. Mr. H. L. Sibal, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the tenant contended that S. 9 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , (briefly the Act) makes an addition to the rent from the date the landlord exercises his right under that Section to increase the rent to the extent of amount of house-tax. He further contended that in the present case, the landlord sent a notice to the tenant only on 15-6-1976 vide which, he exercised his right under S. 9 of the Act, by increasing the rent to the extent of amount of house-tax and, therefore, increase in rent was made only w.e.f. 15-6-1976.

6. On the other hand, Mr. H. L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the landlord in