RAVI S.DHAVAN- - (1.) THE petitioner one Lekh Raj Aneja has been a tenant in a shop situated at Shanti Bhavan, Railway Road, Hapur, Ghaziabad. He faced proceedings in pursuance of an application maintained by the landlord by virtue of Section 20 of Act No. XIII of 1972 on the ground that there have been a default in arrears representing rent and water tax. A notice was received by the tenant petitioner from the landlord. In pursuance of the notice the landlord instituted a suit ; the plaint gives details of the default and the arrears. THE petitioner tenant filed his written statement before the Judge Small Causes confronting the landlord that the rent which he had paid being a sum of Rs. 125/- was inclusive of water tax. THE parties were at issues before the two courts below, on whether there was a contract to the contrary dispensing the obligation to pay water tax. THE two courts concurrently came to a finding that there was no contract to the contrary as has been envisaged in section 7 of the Act aforesaid, relieving the tenant from paying 15% of the rent, as water tax. No document was produced before the Court so as to give rise to a presumption that the tenant had been saved his obligation from paying water tax. All that the tenant stated before the two courts below was, that on the receipt against rent there was an endorsement of an expression : " Chukta ". On this expression the tenant based his pleas in the writ petition implying that when he tendered Rs. 125/- it was inclusive of the water tax Thus, the tenant submits (a) that he was not liable to pay water tax and that it was inclusive of the rent and (b) the rent receipt contained an endorsement of ' Chukta ' implied that water tax had also been discharged. THE document or any contract which would absolve the tenant from the said water tax was never produced. Thus, without the contract to the contrary, the petitioner tenant cannot escape the obligations under section 7 of the Act. THE petitioner is not a tenant who has the protection of the proviso to this section.
(2.) BEFORE this Court, the tenant has also advanced an argument that the shop which he occupies has not been subjected to a separate municipal assessment and there is no liability and ascertainability of the water tax which he has to pay, in addition to the rent of Rs. 125/-. This argument is a plea contradictory to his defence in the written statement to the effect that water tax was inclusive in the rent. The plea in the written statement and the submission at the Bar on the writ petition are pleas which are not compatiable. Thus the two courts came to the right conclusion that the petitioner was in default in arrears. This case, as such, needs no interference in a jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed. As no notices were issued to the respondents there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;