S.U.Khan - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) LANDLORD-petitioner filed S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 1996 against tenant-respondent No. 2 Ram Mohan Tewari for eviction from the tenanted accommodation in dispute which is a shop on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting. Prayer for recovery of arrears of rent was also made in the suit. J.S.C.C./ Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Banda decreed the suit for eviction through judgment and decree dated 6.11.1998. However, finding on the question of sub-letting was recorded against the plaintiff and it was held that there was no sub-letting. Against the said judgment and decree, tenant-respondent No. 2 filed S.C.C. Revision No. 79 of 1998. A.D.J./Special Judge (S.C. and S.T. Act), Banda allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 7.9.1999, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and remanded the matter to the trial court to make fresh calculation to ascertain as to whether amount deposited by the tenant on the first date of hearing was sufficient under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 or not? The said judgment of the revisional court has been challenged through this writ petition. In the plaint, in respect of default, it had been stated that rent was Rs. 100 per month which had not been paid since 1.5.1992. It was further stated that water tax with effect from 1.4.1981 had also not only been paid. However, both the courts below found that the tenant had been depositing water tax before Jal Sansthan, Jhansi. It was found that till 1995, total amount of Rs. 2,358 had been deposited as water tax by the tenant before Jal Sansthan. However, the trial court held that deposition of water tax before Jal Sansthan was not sufficient and tenant should have paid the said amount to the landlord by virtue of Section 7 of the Act and its non-payment to the landlord amounted to default in payment of rent. The lower revisional court reversed the said findings and in my opinion rightly. Water tax is to be paid to the landlord for the reason that landlord is required to pay the same to the authority concerned. If a tenant directly pays the water tax to the authority concerned, it is quite valid. In fact, by paying the water tax directly to the authority concerned, tenant saves the landlord from the trouble of depositing the said amount before the authority concerned after receiving the same from the tenant. Revisional court in its judgment categorically held as follows : "And if the amount paid by the landlord (sic. tenant) as water tax is deducted from the total amount of Rs. 10,009.52 paisa as claimed in paper No. 74C, the total amount due comes much less than Rs. 8,000 deposited by the tenant on the first day of hearing."
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the landlord-petitioner has argued that the revisional court should not have remanded the matter and should have decided the matter finally. LEARNED counsel has further argued that water tax should have been paid directly to the landlord. I accept the first contention and reject the second. Learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner has not disputed that if it is held that tenant was not liable to pay water tax again to the landlord after paying the same to the authority concerned then deposit made by him before the trial court was complete under Section 20 (4) of the Act.;