- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner and Sri P. N. Dubey, learned Counsel for the landlord respon dent No. 1 (the other proforma respondents are tenants ).
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 1 instituted suit for eviction against tenant petitioner on the ground of default in the form of S. C. C. Suit No. 51 of 1997, J. S. C. C. , Agra decreed the suit for eviction was well as for arrears of rent through judgment and decree dated 9. 1. 2007. Against the said judgment and decree, tenant petitioner filed S. C. C. Revision No. 10 of 2007. A. D. J. Court No. 14, Agra dismissed the revision on 15. 3. 2008, hence this writ petition. According to the plaint allegations rate of rent was Rs. 30/- per month and water tax in addition to the said amount was also payable by the tenant. However, tenant pleaded that Rs. 30/- per month included tax also. The Courts belowfound the version of the tenant in this regard to be correct. Renthad notbeen paid si?ce 1. 6. 1989. lnordertoavail benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972 tenant deposited Rs. 4,500 on the first date of hearing i. e. 26. 8. 1998. However, according to the Courts below total amount required to be deposited was Rs. 5,203/-,. e. there was deficiency of Rs. 703/ -. According to the learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner, if tenant is held to be liable to deposit Rs. 30/-per month, then there is no substantial error in the calculation of the Courts below.
(3.) HOWEVER, the main argument of learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner is that water tax even if payable by the tenant still it does not become part of the rent and in order to avail benefitof Section 20 (4) of the Act, it is not necessary to deposit water tax. Learned Counsel has further argued that Courts below held that the rent of Rs. 30/- per month payable by the tenant included tax, accord-ingly amount of rent would be less than Rs. 30/- per month as part of the said figur? would be water tax, do not agree with this argument in the least. The tenant had pleaded that the rent was Rs. 30/- per month, which included water tax. This plea was accepted by the Courts below. It did not mean that rent was less than Rs. 30/- per month and the balance was the water tax. If parties agree that tenant would pay a certain amount per month and it would include water tax in the sense that over and above the said amount tenant would not be required to pay anything as water tax, then the said figur? remains rent and only rent. The said figur? cannot be split into two figures, one denoting the rent and the other denoting the water tax. Inany case by virtue of Section 7 of the Act, water taxbecomes part of the rent. The relevant words under Section 7 of the Act are as follows : "the tenant shall be liable to pay to the landlord in addition to and as part of the rent the. . . . . . . water tax. ";