PREM KAUR Vs. RADHE SHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's revision petition whose ejectment application hat been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) MAHASH Chand was inducted as a tenant by the petitioner-landlord on the demised shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 85/- is terns of the rent note, Exhibit A 2, with effect from September 1, 1971. After the death of Mahesh Chand, three years prior to the filing of the present ejectment application, on October 4, 1985, the landlady sought the ejectment of the respondents on the sole ground of non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from April 1, 1976, onwards and house-tax which was payable in terms of the rent note. The tenants tendered the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 85/- per month from April 1, 1976 to March 31, 1v86, with interest and costs assessed besides a sum of Rs. 750/- towards house-tax with interest thereon. It was also asserted by them in the written state neat that the rent from April 1,19/6 to August 31, 1978 had been paid against receipt dated August 2, 1976 and that the rent from September, 1976 to December, 1978, had been adjusted against the goods purchased by the landlady from the slop of their father whereas the house-tax was not payable by them as so notice was aver given by the landlady for including the same in the rent. It was denied that the shop was being assessed to Douse-tax at the time when the premises were let out. The learned Rent Controller found that since the shop was not assessed to house-tax at the time it was rented out, the landlady could claim the tax only after the date of its demand and that the demand was for the first time made by notice,. Exhibit AZ, dated March 24, 1981, and that the tender of the house-tax was in excess of the amount payable on that account from the said date. The validity of the tender of the arrears of rent was upheld by the Rent Controller. As a result; the ejectmect application was dismissed. Id appeal, She learned appellate authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus rejected the application.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the payment of the house-tax was stipulated in the rent note. Exhibit A-2, dated September 12, 1971, there was no necessity of making a further demand after the house-tax was imposed in the year 1976. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Baldev Kishan v. Bir Bhan, (1970) 72 P. L. R. 354. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that under Section 9 of the East Punjab Urban Rent restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act), a landlord shall be entitled to increase the rent of a building or a rented land if after the commence? meat of the Act a fresh rate, case or tax is levied in respect of the building or rented land by any local authority. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the landlady was entitled to increase the rent only when necessary demand is made in this behalf and since the demand was made in the year 1981, t he tenant paid the house-tax also as a part of the rent.