JUDGMENT :- This is plaintiffs appeal; it arises out of a suit for ejectment of a tenant and arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The plaintiff instituted the suit on the allegation that the tenant had failed to pay arrears of rent for more than three months, within one month of the notice of demand as contemplated by S. 8 of the (U.P.) Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The defendants case was that rent for more than three months was not in arrears. He led evidence in support of this plea by producing in court certain receipts of payment of property tax to Nagar Mahapalika. Both the Courts below have accepted this payment as sufficient to discharge the tenants liability of rent and have held that there were no arrears of rent due against the tenant for more than three months. On this finding the suit for ejectment was dismissed.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the view of the courts below and has contended that the payment made by the tenant to the Nagar Mahapalika was not proved to be a non-voluntary payment and was accordingly not entitled to be deducted from the arrears of rent due against the tenant. The question, therefore, that arises for determination in the appeal is about the effect of the payment of taxes by the tenant.

3. The liability to pay property tax was primarily on the landlord. S. 516 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam provides:-

"516. Attachment of rent due:- (1) Where a bill for any sum due on account of any property tax is served upon an occupier of premises pursuant to sub-section (1) of Section 504, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may at the time of service or at any subsequent time cause to be served upon the occupier a notice requiring him to pay to the Mahapalika any rent due or falling due from him to the person primarily liable for the payment of the said tax to the extent necessary to satisfy the said sum due.

(2) Such notice shall operate as an attachment of the said rent until the said sum due on account of property-tax shall have been paid and satisfied, and the occupier shall be entitled to credit in account with the person to whom the said rent is due for any sum paid by him to the Mahapalika in pursuance of such notice.

(3) If the occupier shall fail to pay to the Mahapalika any rent due or falling due which he has been required to pay in pursuance of a notice served upon him as aforesaid the amount of such rent may be recovered from him by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari as if it were an arrears of property tax under Section 504."

Learned Counsel has Contended that before Section 516 can be attracted, it must be proved that the bill had been served upon the occupier of the premises who, in the present case, was the tenant and that he was required by a notice to pay the amount to the Nagar Mahapalika. The contention is that in the absence of direct evidence to prove that notice contemplated by S. 516 (1) was served on the defendant, the payment made by him cannot be adjustable towards the rent due against file tenant. The evidence in the present case consists of the receipts showing the payment of tax by the tenant in 1965 and 1966 towards the liability for earlier years.

4. Under S. 114 of the Evidence Act, there will be a presumption that the tenant had made the payment after notice had been served on him. Section 114 provides:-

"114. The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case."

Illustration (f) of S. 114 provides:-

"(f) That the Common course of business has been followed in particular cases." In the present case it can be presumed that the procedure for recovery of tax was followed and notice served on the tenant for payment. It can also be presumed that no person will, in the normal course, go to discharge the liability of another person unless he is call

Click Here to Read the rest of this document