N.D.Ojha, J. - (1.) The petitioners are the landlords of an accommodation of which respondent No. 3 is the tenant. A suit was instituted by the petitioner for ejectment of respondent No. 3 from the said accommodation and of recovery of arrears of rent etc. in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Kanpur, on the ground that the said respondent was a defaulter in payment of rent within the meaning of Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent No. 3 contested the suit and also made a deposit of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 20(4) of the Act, in order to save himself from the liability of ejectment on the ground contained in Section 20(2)(a) of the Act. He also pleaded that he was entitled to adjustment of certain amount including a sum of Rs. 1535.01 paid by him towards taxes top the Nagar Mahapalika in the discharge of the primary liability of the landlords. The Judge, Small Causes held that the total amount which the respondent No. 3 was liable to deposit under Section 20(4) of the Act in order to save himself from liability of being evicted comes to Rs. 4.177.58 whereas he was entitled to an adjustment of Rs. 3353.51 which included the sum of Rs. 1535.01 paid by him towards taxes. On the basis of this calculation the Judge, Small Causes held that only a sum of Rs. 824.07 was payable by respondent No. 3 and since the deposit under Section 20(4) had been made on a sum of Rs. 1,000/- he was entitled to the benefit of that Section. On this finding the suit for ejectment was dismissed and a decree for recovery of Rs. 824.07 was passed and the amount deposited by respondent No. 3 was ordered to be adjusted towards the decretal amount. Aggrieved by the decree of the Judge, Small Causes the petitioners preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act before the District Judge. It was dismissed by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur. It is these orders which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
(2.) The only point which was pressed before the Additional District Judge on behalf of the petitioners in their revision was that respondent No. 3 was not entitled to get the sum of Rs. 1535.01, paid by him towards taxes, adjusted in the rent payable by him. In this connection it was pointed out that the sum of Rs. 1535.04 paid by respondent No. 3 towards taxes was in respect of the entire building which was owned by Smt. Malti Devi predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and one Smt. Rajkishori Devi. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioners behalf of the petitioners before the Additional District Judge was that since respondent No. 3 was the tenant only of the portion which was owned by Smt. Malti Devi, at best he was entitled to an adjustment only in regard to that part of the sum of Rs. 1535.01 which represented the taxes of Smt. Malti Devi's portion of the building. This plea had been raised even before the Judges, Small Causes and was repelled. It has been repelled even by the Additional District Judge. The authorities below have held that the entire building was jointly recorded in the name of Smt. Malti Devi and Smt. Rajkishori Devi and a joint demand of taxes having been made in the name of Smt. Malti Devi as well as Smt. Rajkishori Devi, the tenant was justified in making payment of the entire takes demanded. It has also been held as a fact that there was an agreement between the petitioners and respondent No. 3 whereby respondent No. 3 was entitled to adjust the amount of taxes paid by him to the Nagar Mahapalika on behalf of the petitioners in the rent payable by him.
(3.) The same plea which raised in this behalf, on behalf of the petitioners, before the authorities below has been pressed by their counsel in the present writ petition also. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the authorities below I find it difficult to agree with the submission made by counsel for the petitioners. It is true that under sub-section of Section 179 of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 taxes payable by the landlord are recoverable from the tenant he being the occupier of the building only in the proportion referred to in that sub-section. However, sub-section of Section 179 clearly provides:- "An occupier who makes any payment for which he is not primarily liable under the foregoing provisions shall in the absence of any contract to the contrary, be entitled to be reimbursed by the person primarily liable." The building a portion of which is the tenancy of respondent No. 3 stood recorded jointly in the name of Smt. Malti Devi and Smt. Rajkishori Devi and a joint demand of tax was made for the entire building. The primary liability of each of the two co-owners was joint and several vis-a-vis the Nagar Mahapalika in view of the fact that the building, was jointly recorded in their names and it was open to the Nagar Mahapalika to realise the whole amount of tax from any of the two co-owners. As such, the primary liability of Smt. Malti Devi predecessor-in-interest of the 'petitioners was for the entire amount of tax and since the authorities below have recorded a finding that there was an agreement between the parties that respondent No. 3 was entitled to adjust the taxes paid by him the said respondent in view of sub-section 4 of Section 179 was entitled to adjust the entire amount of tax which he had to pay in order to discharge the primary liability of the landlords. The authorities below cannot, therefore, be said to have committed either any manifest error of law or error of jurisdiction in taking the same view.;