SHRI BRIJ LAL Vs. SHRI ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord petitioner sought the ejectment of the tenant-respodent from the premises, in dispute, which consist of the shop bearing No. 351/2, situated in the bazar near the new Sabzi Mandi, Jagadhari, on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from April 1, 1973 to May 31, 1974. It was alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per annum previously, but with effect from April 1, 1973, it was raised to Rs. 50/- per month by a mutual agreement. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was contended that the rent continued to be Rs. 200/- per annum and that it was never increased. A plea was also raised that out of the amount of rent, certain arrears of house-tax due from the landlord were paid to the Municipal Committee, Jagadhari and after deducting the said amount, the balance amount along with the interest and costs, had been duly tendered on the first date of hearing before the Rent Controller. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :

(2.) It is the common case of the parties that the tenant received the notice from the Municipal Committee, dated April 19, 1974, Exhibit R. 5. In the same notice, the tenant was required to deposit the house-tax amounting to Rs. 563.14 in respect of the shops Nos. 351/1 to 351/III. It was also made clear therein that the amount deposited by him in compliance to the above-said notice will be deductible form the rent due to the landlord. According to the tenant, in pursuance of the said notice, he paid a sum of Rs. 233 34, viz, Rs. 150,00 vide receipt, Exhibit R 1; Rs. 30.00 vide receipt, Exhibit R. 2; Rs 37.67 vide receipt Exhibit R 3 and Rs. 15.67 vide receipt, Exhibit R. 4. According to the tenant, this amount was paid as the same was due in respect of the shop in his occupation though the total amount claimed in the notice, Exhibit R. 5, was Rs. 563.14. Before the appellate Authority, the landlord contested the factum of the ownership of the shop mentioned in notice Ex. R. 5 and filed an affidavit dated February 7, 1980 to the effect that the properties bearing No. C/III 351/1, and CIII 351/2 to 5 were orally partitioned on September 12, 1962 between him and his sons. Thus, according to him, the tax paid by the tenant to the Municipal Committee, Jagadhari, was not in respect of the property belonging to him, but to the other. Since the matter was hotly contested before the Appellate Authority, a report was sent for by if from the Rent Controller, in this behalf the Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties, vide his report dated September 1, 1980, held that the arrears of house-tax, at set out in the notice, Exhibit R. 5, were due to the Municipal Committee from Brij Lal, landlord, in respect of the properties belonging to him. Faced with this situation, it was contented before the Rent Controller that the tenant can at the most pay the arrears of the house-tax which were recoverable against the property in his possession, but he could not apply the arrears of the house-tax recoverable against the other properties of the landlord. This plea was rejected by the Rent Controller with the observation that when the arrears of house-tax against the landlord were to be recovered under Section 67 of the Land Revenue Act, the same could be recovered from any property of the landlord. On the receipt of the report, the Appellate Authority accepted the appeal and revered the finding of the Rent Controller under issues Nos. 2 and 3, thus, set aside the order evicting the tenant from the demised premises. On the appreciation of the evidence on the record, it has been found by the Appellate Authority that a sum of Rs. 233.34 paid by the tenant vide receipt Exhibit R. 1 to R. 4, was paid in respect of the premises in dispute, though the notice was for higher amount. In this view of the matter, it was held that the tenant had paid or tendered the arrears and nothing was due from his in respect of the period, in question when the matter came up before the Rent Controller.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the notice Exhibit Rs. 5 related to the other properties of the landlord including the premises in dispute and, therefore, it could not be held that the tax was deposited by the tenant in compliance of the said notice in respect of the premises, in question. Moreover, according to the learned counsel the receipt, Exhibit R. 1 to R. 4 were not only qua the premises in dispute, but also related to the other properties of the landlord. Reference was also made to sub-section on (4) to Section 94 of the Haryana Municipal Act in support of this contention.