S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri P.K. Jain for the petitioner and Sri K.K. Arora for the second respondent. Sri Arora has filed a short counter affidavit today. Sri P.K. Jain does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit instead both the counsel have agreed to the petition being disposed of finally at this stage, in view of certain inconsistencies in the revisional order and to get the matter remitted back to the revisional court for decision afresh.
(2.) THE writ petition arises out of suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment filed by the second respondent against the petitioner in respect of house No. 133, Bankers Street, Meerut Cantt, in which a portion consisting of two rooms and covered verandah on the ground floor on the South West Corner of the building has been in occupation of the petitioner. The case of the plaintiff respondent was that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 175/ - in addition to the tax liability fastened upon him by virtue of Section 7 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant committed default in payment of rent for a period exceeding four months, whereupon his tenancy was determined by means of notice followed by suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. The suit was contested by the defendant -petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the rent was Rs. 125 inclusive of all taxes and not Rs. 175/ - per month as alleged by the plaintiff. It was also alleged that rent had been paid up to date and that the defendant was not in arrears of rent as alleged in the plaint. It was held by the trial court that the rent of the premises in question was Rs. 125/ - per month and not Rs. 175/ - as alleged by the plaintiff. The trial court gave the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The trial court also held that the defendant was not liable to pay the water tax or the enhanced house tax, and accordingly dismissed the suit vide judgment and order dated 27.7.1992. Thereafter the plaintiff filed revision which has been allowed by the revisional court vide judgment and order dated 21.12.1996. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law. A perusal of the impugned judgment would indicate that the revisional court maintained the finding recorded by the trial court on the question of rate of rent and it also held that the defendant committed no default in payment of rent and that the finding recorded by the trial court on this score being a finding of fact was not liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional powers. But in the operative part of the judgment the revisional court has decreed the suit for arrears of rent from 13.12.1986 to 17.10.1989 calculated at the rate of Rs. 125/ - per month. The decree for arrears of rent from 13.12.1986 to 17.10.1989 is inconsistent with the finding recorded by the trial court as maintained by the revisional court that the rent was paid upto December, 1988. It is due to this inconsistency that the counsel for the parties have agreed that the case may be remitted to the revisional court for decision afresh.
(3.) THE revisional court has reversed the finding of the trial court on the question of tax liability but it has failed to record a categorical finding as to what was the total amount of tax due against the petitioner. It cannot be gain said that if the total amount of tax due against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act exceeds the amount of rent for four months then in that event the defendant would be treated as defaulter and in case the same is not deposited as comprehended by Section 20(4) of the Act, the decree for eviction can be passed against him. This aspect of the matter has not been properly adverted to by the revisional court. It may also be observed that the revisional court has not addressed itself to the question whether the amount, if any, deposited under Section 30 of the Act was liable to be taken into consideration while calculating the defendant's liability towards rent. The revisional court, in my opinion, should address itself whether the deposit, if any, made under Section 30 of the Act was valid and whether the tenant had acquired any right under the provisions of Section 20(4) of U.P. 13 of 1972. In the result petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned revisional order dated 21.12.1996 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the revisional court with direction to readmit the revision to its number and dispose it of in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.;