RAM KISHAN Vs. GHANSHAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner i.e. the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. Admittedly, the petition has been filed on 19.4.1984, the rent was tendered at the rate of Rs. 160/- per month i.e., the increased rent in pursuant to the agreements which was arrived at between the parties which have been exhibited as Ex. R-1 and Ex. R.2. However, as per the claim of the petitioner the respondent-tenant had tendered rent in excess to the extent of Rs. 160/-. This fact has been fairly admitted by the counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner claimed that in pursuant to Section 8 of the Act, it is obligatory upon the tenant to pay the increase in the cess or tax which may be suffered by the property and that the same is not payable by the landlord. It is further provided in the proviso to Section 8 that the increase in rent shall be payable by the tenant from the date of despatch of the written notice of demand sent by the landlord under registered cover. It is argued that the notice Ex. A1 dated 23.3.1984 was sent to the tenant and it was received by the tenant on 4.4.1984. Resultantly, the tenant was liable to pay the increase in cess as arrears of rent. My attention has been drawn to para No. 2 of the plaint under which the claim has been made by the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1982 upto 31.3.1984 amounting to Rs. 480.

(3.) THE order dated 23.5.1986 passed by the Rent Controller was made subject matter of challenge before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal vide order dated 6.9.1986 and has set aside the order of the Rent Controller. It has been held by the Appellate Authority that the landlord can demand increase suffered in the cess or tax only after serving demand notice and that in the case at hand, the notice is stated to have been received by the tenant in the beginning of April, 1984 whereas the application for ejectment has been filed on 19.4.1984. Resultantly, the tenant was not liable to pay as claimed by the landlord. I find this finding is correct. At the time of filing of the application for ejectment the house tax prior to February, 1982 was not due. Thus, it could not be held that the tenant was in arrears of house tax.