HARI KRISHAN Vs. DWARKA DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question has been raised in this petition for revision under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

(2.) ON facts, there is no dispute. An application was made by the landlord for the eviction of the tenant on 27th of April, 1965. In the application, the landlord claimed that the tenant was in arrears of rent and house tax from the year 1961 to 1965. The tenant on the first hearing deposited a sum of Rs. 754/ - as rent, Rs. 25/ as costs, Rs. 45/ - as interest and Rs. 81.98 np as house tax for the years 1962 to 1964. Thus the position emerges that no house -tax was paid for the years 1961 and 1965 -66. It is also not disputed that the house -tax was imposed for the first time with effect from 1st of July, 1961. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenant was liable to pay house -tax for the years 1961 and 1965 -66 and as it had not been paid, the eviction of the tenant was ordered. On appeal by the tenant the Appellant Authority reversed the decision of the Rent Controller on the ground that the house -tax had been paid up to 31st of March, 1965 and regarding the year 1965 -66, it was observed that "no increase in the monthly rent proportionate to the levy of house tax was made and consequently no ejectment for non -payment of house -tax for 1965 -66 could be ordered." Against this decision, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, I see no ground to interfere in the order of the Rent Controller, though on different reasons than those which prevailed with him because I do not agree with his conclusion that the increase had not been effected after the notice. This petition thus fails and is dismissed; but there will be no order as to costs.