BALRAM Vs. BAIKUNTHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The present civil revision is directed as against the order dated 1st April, 1988 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court by virtue of which the plaintiff's suit for eviction and for recovery of part of rent due has been decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiff's suit for ejectment on the ground of default with the allegation that the applicant was the tenant in the premises in dispute at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month and he was liable to pay, in addition to the said rent, the water tax and sewage tax and since he fell in arrears and did not deposit the same a notice was served on him and inspite of the notice since he did not pay, a suit for the same was filed. THE case of the defendant, however, is that though he is a tenant of the premises in question but he did not commit any default. In fact, he deposited the rent under section 30 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act when the landlord himself refused to accept the rent. It was the case that initially rent was Rs. 55/- and subsequently enhancement was made from time to time on account of the increase in tax. Thus the rent of Rs. 100/- included the tax payable by him. It is the case of the defendant while depositing the rent under section 30 of the Act specific mention was made that it includes the water tax. THE trial court, however, held that the rent of Rs. 100/- per month was deposited by the defendant and since it did not include the water tax and that not being deposited, default was committed by the tenant hence liable for eviction. It is against this the present revision has been preferred.

(3.) THE trial court has recorded a finding that the applicant has failed to prove that Rs. 100/- which is paid inclusive of the water tax. THE finding was also recorded that in view of section 7 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which speaks about the written contract between the landlord and tenant regarding payment of water tax by the tenant, the rent is due on the tenant. In fact argument was that it is not necessary that there should be a written contract under the aforesaid Act regarding payment of water tax and in the alternative it is urged that in any case the finding that Rs. 100/- is not inclusive water tax, cannot be sustained as he has not looked into other evidence on the record.