R.B.Lal, J. - (1.) THIS is a landlord's revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
(2.) THE plaintiff-applicants filed suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits, water-tax and drainage-tax. THEy claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 850/- per month. THE defendant opposite party contested the suit. THE learned District Judge, Kanpur dismissed the suit for eviction and for recovery of water-tax, drainage tax and mesne profits. He decreed the suit for arrears of rent. The plaintiffs have not felt satisfied and have filed this revision. Only one point has been urged in this revision. It has been urged that the applicants were entitled to water-tax in addition to the monthly rent in view of the provisions of section 7 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (briefly the Act). The tenancy was continuing since before the coming into force of the Act. There was a written agreement between the parties according to which the liability for payment of water-tax was that of the landlords but this agreement could not help the tenant-opposite party because it was entered into before the coming into force of the Act. The Act was only prospective and, therefore, the earlier agreement could not be relied upon by the tenant to escape liability for payment of water-tax under section 7.
(3.) I have given careful consideration to this submission of the learned counsel. The portion of section 7 which is relevant for our purposes provides that subject to any contract in writing to the contrary the tenant shall be liable to pay to the landlord in addition to and as part of the rent the water-tax. The words subject to any contract in writing to the contrary' appearing in section 7 are quite general and would take within their sweep the contract which was entered into by the parties prior to the coming into force of the Act. There is no justification to restrict the meaning of the aforesaid words to agreements which were entered into after the coming into force of the Act. The contention that the Act is prospective in nature and, therefore, the requirement of existence of contract in writing to the contrary j could mean only a contract entered into between the parties after the coming into force of the Act, is based on a misconception of the prospective nature of the Act. The effect of section 7 is that a landlord can claim water-tax in addition to the rent, from a tenant from the date, the Act came into force, but this is subject to any contract in writing to the contrary. In case, there is a written contract between the parties which absolves the tenant from such a liability, the landlord cannot take benefit of section 7. In the instant case, the existence of prior agreement making the payment of water-tax a responsibility of the landlord, is merely an antecedent fact which becomes operative for the benefit of the tenant from the date of the commencement of the Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the existence of the prior agreement would make the provisions of section 7 of the Act retrospective. In this connection I may refer to the decision Gopal Krishna v. Vth Additional District Judge, Kanpur (F. B.), 1981 AWC 321. The concept of retrospectivity was discussed in paras 30 to 34 of the decision by the Full Bench. The principle laid down is applicable to the instant case. I am clearly of the view that in view of the written agreement between the parties, the landlords applicants were not entitled to claim water-tax in addition to the rent. The view taken by the learned District Judge was correct.;