HARIHAR PRASAD Vs. ANANT PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff arising out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent on a holding which is sharahmoaiyan with an area of 2.07 aores in Mauza Katrabagh, Tauzi No. 2494 now situated within the Gaya Municipality. The claim of the plaintiff is limited to 8 annas being his share of this holding. The rental fixed was Rs. 57-7-6. The holding consists of a number of plots; one of them is a house in which the defendant, who is a tenant, resides. The only question which is now in controversy before me is whether the defendant is entitled to set off with respect to the municipal tax which he pays regarding the house.

(2.) The claim is limited again to set off for the house tax only the original claim for latrine tax and water tax had been given up during the course of the trial. The learned Subordinate Judge upon a consideration of Secs.100 and 109, Municipal Act, came to the conclusion that under Clause 2 of Section 109 a tenant is entitled to deduct from the rent the municipal tax which he pays for the land and then he fixed the amount which should be allowed to be deducted for the years in suit upon a basis which I shall consider in a moment. Hence the appeal before me.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader appearing for the plaintiff-appellant argues that the defendant has no right to claim a setoff for the house tax and that the defendant must be treated to be the owner" of the holding on account of the fact that the holding is sharahmoaiyan and therefore the tenant has an unrestricted right of transfer. I do not agree with this contention. The word "owner" has been defined in the Act and in Sub-clause 18 of Section 3 it is stated to include every person who is entitled for the time being to receive any rent with respect to the land whether from the occupier or otherwise.