MOHD JAFAR IQBAL Vs. NAWAB BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of the courts below decreeing the Plaintiff -opposite party's suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment.

(2.) SMT . Nawab Begum, Plaintiff -opposite party, filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the Defendant and seven others with the allegation that the building in dispute was a new building not subject to the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 and that Mohd. Zafar Iqbal, the Defendant -applicant, was tenant of a portion of the building on a rent of Rs. 70/ -per mensem, he had committed default in payment of rent inspite of service of notice. The Plaintiff claimed a decree for arrears of rent and also for electric charges. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant -applicant had agreed to pay the electricity charges for the entire building after realising the same from another tenant Tasleemuddin and he was to deposit the same in the Hydel Department. Tasleemuddin had vacated the house without paying electricity charges. The Defendant -applicant had failed to deposit the electricity charges in the office of the Hydel Department, as a result of which electricity was disconnected. Subsequently electricity was resumed and the Plaintiff had to pay a sum of Rs. 30/ -as reconnection charges. The Plaintiff claimed decree for rent as well as for arrears of electricity charges. The Defendant -applicant contested the suit and asserted that the building in question was an old construction and it was subject to U.P. Act XIII of 1972. He further asserted that on receipt of Plaintiff's notice he had remitted the entire rent to the Plaintiff and as such he was not a defaulter. With regard to the Plaintiff's claim for electricity charges, the Defendant -applicant asserted that he was not personally liable for electricity charges and he denied that he ever agreed to realise the electricity charges from other tenants and deposit the same in the Hydel Department.

(3.) THE sole question which arises for determination is as to whether electricity charges are included within the expression "rent" and the Defendant -applicant was liable to ejectment on the findings recorded by the courts below. As already noted, there is no dispute that on receipt of the notice of demand the Defendant -applicant had remitted the entire arrears of rent to the Plaintiff and both the courts below have held that the Defendant had not committed any default in payment of rent but since he had failed to pay electricity charges, he was a defaulter liable to ejectment. The findings of the courts below are based on the assumption that electricity charges were part of rent.