Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 13.10.1999 passed by respondent No. 1 allowing the revision and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff respondent No. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No. 3 filed S.C.C. Suit No. 37 of 1998 before the Judge Small Causes Court on the allegation that the petitioner is the tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 100/ -. He gave notice demanding arrears of rent alleged to be due since 20th February 1996. The petitioner did not pay the arrears of rent and thereby committed default and was liable for eviction on the ground mentioned under Section 20(2)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner contested the suit. It was denied that he was in arrears of rent. It was stated that originally the rate of rent was Rs. 30/ - per month which was enhanced to Rs. 75/ - per month and ultimately Rs. 100/ - per month. The amount of rent was inclusive of all taxes. He tendered the rent but as the landlord refused to accept the rent he sent the amount by money order and ultimately he deposited the amount in the proceedings under Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972. The Judge Small Causes Court recorded a finding that the water tax was not included in the rate of rent and the petitioner was liable to pay water tax in addition to rent as provided under Section 7 of the Act. The Judge Small Causes Court recorded a finding that the rent included the amount of water tax. The suit was accordingly dismissed on 5.4.1999. Respondent No. 3 preferred a revision against this order. Respondent No. 1 recorded a finding that the water tax was not included in monthly rent. The petitioner was liable to pay water tax and as water tax was not paid he will be liable for eviction. The suit was accordingly decreed vide judgment dated 13.10.1999.
(2.) I have heard Sri Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Deo Raj, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tenant shall be liable to pay water tax only when in the notice the amount of water tax was disclosed and it is proved as to how much amount is liable to be paid by the tenant towards water tax. He has placed reliance upon the decisions Om Prakash Nigam v. Ved Prakash Gupta : 1981 (7) ALR 530, Dr. Nilamber Jha v. 1st Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur and others : 1982 (1) ARC 555 and Shri Ram Mittal v. XI Additional District Judge, Meerut and others : 1997 (29) ALR 435.
(3.) SRI Deo Raj, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that even though the precise amount has not been disclosed in the notice but it was clearly mentioned that the rate of water tax is 17% and as admittedly the petitioner was tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 100/ - per month he was liable to pay at the rate of Rs. 17/ - per month towards water tax which shall be taken as a part of the rent in view of Section 7 of the Act.;