RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed by the landlord of a building raises an interesting question of law. The question is whether a tenant is liable to pay water-tax for the building in his occupation to the landlord as a part of the rent regardless of the fact whether the landlord has paid to the Municipality the water-tax for the said building. The landlord's contention is that water-tax is a part of the rent and the tenant is liable to pay the same along with the rent and in any event on demand. The tenant's stand is that water-tax is not a part of the rent and the tenant is not liable to pay the same. Secondly, the landlord had to prove that he had paid the concerned water-tax to the Municipality. Thirdly, there would be no liability on the tenant to, any water-tax when he had separate water connection from the Municipality. To appreciate the question raised, it would be necessary to set out the relevant facts.

(2.) The petitioner Ghanshyam Das, who is the owner-cum-landlord of the building in dispute filed as suit for the ejectment of the tenant Baijnath Agarwal after serving him a notice. The petitioner stated that rent of the building was Rs. 35/- per month and that the tenant was also liable to pay house and water-tax In the notice dated 4th April, 1974 he demanded house and water tax with effect from 1-10-1972 till 31-3-1974. The tenant, according to the petitioner, did not tender the entire amount due. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a suit in the court of Judge, Small Causes, Etah and claimed the relief of ejectment as well as recovery of Rs. 105/- as three months' rent, Rs. 63.00 as water tax at the rate of Rs. 3.51 per month and Rs. 5.25 as house tax besides damages for use and occupation. The defence in the suit was a denial of the liability to pay water tax, and a plea was taken that the tenant had been paying water charges to the Municipal Board and accordingly these charges had to be adjusted against the water tax. The Court of Small Causes held that the water tax would be adjusted and consequently there was no default and as such the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision before the District Judge. The District Judge held that there was no ground for interference in the revision. He observed that no notice had been served on the defendant Baijnath and in the absence of a proper notice of demand, there could be no default. He further held that the petitioner- landlord had not paid any water tax to the Municipal Board before the service of the alleged notice of demand or even till the institution of the suit. He also observed that "the landlord cannot recover water tax from the tenant unless he pays it to the Municipal Board." On this ground the revisional court held that the landlord could not demand the amount of water tax from the tenant and consequently there was no default and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Thereafter, a civil revision was filed in this Court by the petitioner, but the same was dismissed as not maintainable. Thereupon, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(3.) 1 have heard Mr. S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the lower court record.