BANU RAM Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is by the landlord assailing the order passed by the appellate authority reversing the judgment of the Rent Controller. The ground of eviction was that there had been a short payment of rent by the tenant inasmuch as the municipal tax levied on him ought to have been paid by the tenant, but was not so paid.

(2.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner assails the judgment of the Rent Controller by making reference to Section 9 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act of 1949 that reads as follows:-

(3.) I am afraid that there is a complete misunderstanding of the judgment and the Section under the Act in the manner in which the contentions are raised by the landlord. Section 9 protects the landlord from taking additional burden of liability during the subsistence of lease by the enhancement of tax. Such additional amount is the component of liability that can be added as a liability by the tenant himself. Additional liability which a landlord can force on a tenant in such a situation cannot also be more than the actual increase in rent as is provided through Section 9(2). This Court has observed in the cited decision above that the operation of Section 9(1) is not automatic and enabling provision that entitles a landlord to increase the rent could be founded either on a contract by mutual agreement or even without any agreement, a statute would avail to a landlord to cast such liability on the tenant. The situation could be illustrated thus. If during the tenancy when the rent was 'x' and the tax was a fixed sum say 'a' if an additional tax is imposed or the tax is raised making it 'a+b', the rent which the landlord is entitled to claim under Section 9 is 'x+b'. The additional amount that the landlord pays alone is the amount which Section 9 makes possible for a landlord to recover. It could be also seen in another situation where a property is already assessed to tax and the landlord gives the property on rent to a tenant. In such a situation, there is no presumption that the amount covered under the tax will also be paid by the tenant. There has to be a specific agreement for the same. If in the latter situation there is an addition of liability by the landlord, it is that amount of addition that could be recovered from the tenant even without any agreement with the tenant. While the initial component of tax cannot be presumed to be a portion of rent liability for a tenant, an additional liability that arises to the tenant by virtue of Section 9 need not depend on any agreement. A mere demand by the landlord that the Municipal Committee has levied tax on the building cannot avail to a landlord to plead that since he has issued a notice, he is entitled to claim the same from the tenant. The notice which Section 9(2) contemplates is a notice of additional liability to a tenant arising by a fresh levy after the Act or an increase in the amount of tax. The definition of 'rent' itself is not defined under the Act. We must therefore look to the definition of 'rent' under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. The rent is the money, share, service or other thing to be rendered for a lease. Such an amount is invariably a term of contract. The decision of the appellate authority ought to be supported on this ground that the landlord had not established the tax liability as part of the rent.