GANGA PRASAD Vs. CHEDI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's second appeal for ejectment and arrears of rent etc.

(2.) The building consists of several tenements and is occupied by a number of tenants including the defendant respondent, who has been in occupation of two tenements one on payment of Rs. 12.50 per month and other on payment of Rs. 10/- per month as rent. Rent from April, 1964 fell into arrears. The plaintiff, thereupon, served two separate notices on the defendant demanding arrears of rent from April 1, 1964 and terminating the tenancy in respect of the two tenements occupied by the defendant respondent. The notices were served personally on the defendant respondent on February 6, 1995. In reply, the dependent respondent informed the plaintiff appellant that the rent for the period April 1, 1964 to January 31, 1965 had been deposited by him in the Nagar Mahapalika towards house and water taxes. Plaintiff appellant's case was that only the amount of Rs. 90.11 deposited on February 20, 1965 was towards the house and water taxes and the other sums alleged to have been deposited by the defendant were in respect of excess water charges. By an amendment in the plaint it was further pleaded by the plaintiff appellant that he was served with a notice of demand dated December 17, 1963 regarding property Taxes (house tax and water tax) and Rs. 386.35 on account of excess water tax. The plaintiff alleged that he deposited Rs. 342/- as property tax for the period April 1, 1963 to March 31, 1964 but the water supply was disconnected for non-payment of excess water charges. It was also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had admitted the liability for payment of excess water charges. The liability of the several tenements was in proportion to the rent payable by them in respect of their tenements. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 91.78 as arrears of rent in respect of one tenement and Rs. 72.53 as arrears of rent in respect of the other tenement besides damages for use and occupation after the date of termination of the tenancy.

(3.) The defence was that Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur had a notice dated July 18, 1964 attached the rent payable by the defendant respondent to the plaintiff appellant, for the recovery of Rs. 762.39 on account of property taxes and that the defendant respondent had to pay the attached rent to the Nagar Mahapalika from April 1, 1964 to June, 1965 and was entitled to adjust the payment so made against the rent payable to the plaintiff appellant. It was further alleged that the defendant respondent was not liable to pay the excess water charges as there was no agreement between the parties that excess water charges shall be payable by the tenant.