RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. DR. RAJWANT RAI SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 762 and 763 of 1982 as the question involved in both of them is the same. Both the revision petitions are directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated December 22,1979, whereby the application under Section 19 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act) filed on behalf of the tenant respondent was allowed and it was directed that a complaint be filed against the landlord petitioner under Section 19 of the Act, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) THE landlord petitioner filed an application for the ejectment of the tenant from the demised remises inter -alia on the grounds of non -payment of the rent due and the house tax. In the said ejectment application though the landlord had claimed the house -tax, yet he had not mentioned the amount of the same. The tenant moved an application in the Court of the Rent Controller requesting to tell him the amount of the house tax claimed by the landlord for the relevant period. According to the tenant, the house tax claimed was Rs. 891.00 for the year 1977 -78. Thus, in order to avoid his ejectment, he deposited one half of the said amount due from him. However, according to the allegations of the tenant, as per the rate of rent, the amount of house tax came to Rs. 365/ - only and that the landlord with full knowledge that the house tax due from him was Rs. 365/ -, had intentionally and knowingly claimed and recovered the excessive amount of the house tax to the tune of Rs. 80 50. In any case, the actual amount of the house tax deposited by the landlord in the Municipal Committee was Rs. 801.95 and, therefore, he had claimed the excessive amount of Rs. 35.95 from him. Thus, according to him, the landlord contravened the provisions of subsection (2) of section 9 of the Act and as such, he was liable to be punished under section 19 of the Act. In the reply filed on behalf of the landlord to this application, it was stated that the original bill received by him from the Municipal Committee was for Rs. 891.00 though subsequently, certain rebate was allowed to him under law. Under these circumstances, it was submitted that there was no question of any contravention of sub -section (2) of section 9 of the Act, as alleged. The Rent Controller took the view that the landlord could only claim Rs. 365/ - as the house tax from the tenant while he had claimed and charged Rs. 445.50 from him. Hence, he had violated the provisions of sub section (2) of Section 9 of the Act. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the provisions of sub -section (2) of Section 9 of the Act are not at all attracted to the present case. Section 9 reads: -