GANGA RAM Vs. MOHAMMAD USMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment would dispose of two Civil Revisions Nos. 27-D and 44-D of 1966 which have been filed by Ganga Ram against Mohd. Usman and are directed against the judgments and decrees of Additional Judge, Small Cause Court. The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the question involved in the two revisions is the same and decision in Civil Revision No. 27-D of 1966 would also govern the other revision. In the circumstances, the tacts of the suit giving rise to Civil Revision No. 27-D of 1966 only may be referred to.

(2.) The petitioner has taken house No. 369 situated in Haveli Haider Kuli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, from the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 60.00. Some portions of the house were let out by the petitioner to Bishamber Dayal, Dharam Chand and Rameshwar Dayal on monthly rent of Rs. 23.50 paise, Rs. 33.00 and Rs. 22.00 respectively. Portion of the house also continued to remain in the occupation of the petitioner. On account of the above sub-letting, the Delhi Municipal Corporation took it that the house was fetching a rent of Rs. 138.25 Paise per month. The rateable value of the house was fixed at the enhanced amount of Rs. 1717.00, The respondent went up in appeal against the above assessment but the appeal was dismissed by Shri P. N. Thukral, Additional District Judge, as per order dated September II, 1962. It was held that the property had been correctly assessed and Mohd. Usman respondent would be entitled to recover from the tenant the difference between the amount of property tax levied upon him and the amount which would have been leviable upon him if the said taxes were calculated on the amount of rent actually received by him. The respondent thereupon filed suit for recovery of Rs. 445.41 Paise against the petitioner on the allegation that the above amount represented the excess of the amount of house-tax, water-tax etc., paid during the period from February 7, 1961 to April 7, 1963, by the respondent to the Municipal Corporation over what would have been paid by him for the house in dispute had its rateable value been assessed on the basis of the monthly rent of Rs. 60.00, the actual amount received by the respondent from the petitioner. The respondent in this connection relied upon the provisions of Section 121 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the petitioner. He admitted that he had agreed to pay rent of Rs. 60.00 per mensern but pleaded ignorance regarding the rateable value of the house as assessed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation. According further to the petitioner, the sub-tenants had been inducted into the house in dispute in pursuance of an agreement with the respondent. The petitioner denied his liability to pay the amount claimed by the respondent. Plea was also taken that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the same was barred in view of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. An objection on the ground of non-joinder of parties was also taken. The additional Judge Small Cause Court found that the following points arose for determination :-