The court emphasized that Sec.9(2) of the Act contemplates recovery of the amount of any tax and not the demand alone, and found no violation of the provision in the absence of any recovery.

, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller Ludhiana dated 30 4-I988 whereby sanction for filing a complaint against the landlord was granted.

2. The tenant Kirpal Kaur and others filed a petition under Sec.19 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the act) for taking action against their landlord Parshotam Lal as he had violated the provisions of sub Sec.2 of Sec.9 of the Act. According to the tenant, the landlord filed an ejectment application in which ho claimed house tax from them which the landlord was not entitled to recover. Hence he violated the provisions of sub-Section 2 of Sec.9 of the Act and hence necessary sanction for prosecution was sought under Sec.19 of the Act. The case of the landlord was that, tenant has not paid arrears of house tax claimed by the landlord and that being so the question of violating the provisions of sub-section,12 of Sec.9 did not arise. The learned Rent Controller found that what is to be seen is as to whether the landlord is liable for demanding house tax time and again when once it was settled that he was not entitled for the same. It was further found that Sec.9 of the Act prohibits the landlord from increasing the rent of the building on account of douse tax except in cases where fresh house tax is levied after the commencement of the Act or there is increase in the rate of house tax being levied at the commencement of the Act. According to the learned Rent Controller while demanding enhanced rent on account of house tax when it was already held that the landlord was not liable for that, he has contravened the provisions of Sec.9 of the Act.

3. Learned counsel for the landlord/petitioner submitted that there was no violation of sub-Section 2 of Sec.9 of the Act as it contemplates recovery from his tenant on account of any fax. The mere demand, according to the learned counsel was not sufficient unless the said amount was recovered which was never the case of the tenant. Thus argued the learned counsel since there was no violation of subsection 9, the question of granting any sanction for any prosecution under Sec.19 of the Act was not available.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner I find merit in this petition. Sub-Section 2 of Sec.9 reads as under : "9 (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 there of in respect of any building or rented land occupied by such tenant by any increase in the amount of the rent payable or otherwise save as provided in sub-section. (1)" It is evident that said provision contemplates recovery of the amount of any tax and not the demand alone In the present case there is no allegation of any recovery but it was only the demand made by the landlord. Thus there being no violation of sub-Section 2 of Sec.9 the question of granting any permission under Sec.19 did not arise. Consequently, this petition succeeds. The impugned order is set aside and the application under Sec.19 of the Act filed by the tenant is dismissed with no order as to costs.