R.S. Narula, J. - (1.) THE following three questions of interpretation and scope of the relevant provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Act III of 1949), hereinafter called the Act, have arisen in this case in the circumstances hereinafter detailed - (1) Whether the expression 'the rent due' used in Sub -section (2) of Section 13 of the Act includes the amount of house -tax levied on the demised premises under Section 61 of the Punjab Municipal Act in case where the tenant had agreed in the rent -deed to pay the house -tax in addition to the rent ? (2) Whether the provisions of Section 9 of the Act would or would not apply to a case where house -tax had been agreed to be paid, but had neither been claimed nor recovered for about six years though rent was being paid regularly during that period and, thereafter, the house -tax was suspended in the locality but reimposed a few years later and claim for such tax was made for the first time in an application brought under Section 13(2) (i) of the Act for eviction of the tenant ? (3) Whether in a case of the type referred to in Question No. (2) above, it is necessary to furnish to the tenant details of the tax levied and of the claim of the landlord and give the tenant an opportunity to pay the same before filing a claim for eviction on ground of nonpayment of rent because of the house -tax not having been paid ? The present litigation relates to shop No. 1057/4 situated in Sheranwala Gate, Patiala. This shop was let out by Bir Bhan, Respondent No. l, hereinafter called the landlord on October 31, 1957, with effect from November 1 in that year, on the basis of the rent -deed, exhibit A.W. 2/1, executed by Baldev Kishan Petitioner, whom I will call the tenant in this judgment. The period of tenancy was fixed at ll 1/2 months. Clause 2 of the rent -deed, the original of which is in Urdu language and script, when freely translated into English, would read - -
(2.) THE rent has been fixed at Rs. 25/ - per month; but the rent is separate from the electricity charges. Clause 5 of the rent note executed by the tenant, when similarly translated into English, would read - - 5. Property -tax will be paid by the owner. House -tax would be paid by me. The period of the tenancy contemplated by exhibit A.W. 2/1 came to an end in the middle of September, 1958. Thereafter it continued as a statutory monthly tenancy. Though house -tax was being imposed by the Patiala Municipal Committee at least in 1960 -61 (at a rate of calculated on the basis of Rs. 20 having been determined as rental value of the property) no house -tax was, in fact, claimed from or paid by the tenant, though he admittedly continued to pay Rs. 25 per month as rent. With effect from April 1, 1962, imposition of house -tax in Patiala was suspended. It appears from the evidence on the record (statement of Rajinder Kumar A.W. 1) that the imposition of house -tax was stopped in Patiala in 1962, but the tax was reimposed in 1964 -65. According to Mr. Mohinderjit Singh Sethi, learned Counsel for the Defendant, house -tax had been abolished or suspended in Patiala from April 1, 1962, to March 31, 1965, but was reimposed with effect from April 1, 1965. He is, no doubt, supported in this context by the observation of the learned Chief Justice in paragraph 5 of his Lordship's judgment, dated November 28, 1968, in Kirpal Kaur v. Bhagwant Rai, 1969 R.C.R. 86 at p. 89. The learned Chief Justice has observed there that the house -tax was levied in Patiala between 1956 and 1961, but the city was exempted from the levy of house -tax from 1962 to 1964 and then it was again levied from the year 1965. This is consistent with the pleadings of the parties, the admission in the application for eviction and the evidence produced by the landlord himself at the trial of this suit. Rajinder Kumar A.W.I has deposed during the course of his statement before the Rent Controller that house -tax had been reimposed in Patiala from 1964 -65. 2. On the re -imposition of the tax, notice for determination of the rental value of the property of the landlord was issued to him on June 8, 1965. In reply to that notice, the landlord filed his written objections, exhibit A.W. 2/2, dated June 28, 1965. The objections were filed in English language. Discrepancies between the annual rent charged by the landlord from his tenants at that time in respect of three different premises including the one in suit and the rent shown in the municipal records were pointed out by the landlord. So far as the shop in dispute is concerned, it was stated that its actual rent was Rs. 25 per month as against Rs. 20/ - per month shown in the municipal records. It is significant to note that the landlord himself did not at that time represent to the Municipal Committee that the rent was Rs. 25/ -plus the amount of house -tax, but disclosed the rent of the tenant as Rs. 25/ - per month only. The total monthly rent of the entire building consisting of the three premises including the shop in dispute was shown by the landlord in his above said objection statement as Rs. 49 per month (Rs. 8 + Rs. 16 + Rs. 25). The municipality was asked to make necessary corrections in its record. On November 26, 1965, the landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant (this date is taken from paragraph 3 of the present petition for ejectment). One of the grounds on which ejectment was sought was non -payment of rent. The main basis of that grievance was that the tenant had not paid, contrary to his ' stipulation in the rent -deed, house -tax since November 1, 1957. The details of how much house -tax was due from the tenant and on what basis it had been worked out were not given in the petition for eviction. The landlord's abovesaid previous petition was dismissed by the order of the Rent Controller on March 11, 1966. His appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on February 2, 1967 (these two agreed dates have been furnished to me by the learned Counsel for the parties). Neither a copy of the Rent Controller's order nor that of the appellate authority was produced at the trial of the suit. In the meantime, proceedings for assessment of house -tax were taken up by the Municipal Committee. Report, dated April 6, 1967, was submitted by the House -tax Inspector wherein the objections filed by the landlord were summarised. The report was then put up to the House -tax Sub -Committee by order of the Tax Department, dated April 7, 1967. The House -tax Sub -Committee, by its order dated June 30, 1967, exhibit A.W./l, confirmed the monthly rental value for all the three properties of the landlord, including the one in dispute, at Rs. 49/ - per month. This shows that the representation made by the landlord about the monthly rent of the tenant being Rs. 25 per month was accepted by the Municipal Committee. On the basis of the abovesaid decision of the House -tax Sub -Committee, a sum of Rs. 33/75 Paise per annum was determined by the municipal authorities to be payable by the landlord in respect of the shop in dispute on the following basis, as disclosed in the extract from the Municipal Assessment Register, exhibit A.W.1/2 - - The landlord actually paid out the house -tax in respect of the shop in dispute fori the two years i.e. 1965 -66 and 1966 -67 at Rs. 33/75 paise per annum. The original receipt, exhibit A.W. 1/3, dated July 27, 1967, produced by the landlord shows that after taking benefit of rebate of Rs. 13/50 Paise out of the total sum of Rs. 67/50 Paise payable for two years, the landlord paid out Rs. 54 to the Municipal Committee.
(3.) IN the meantime, the landlord had taken two steps. Firstly, on May 12, 1967, he had filed a fresh petition for eviction of the tenant from which the present proceedings have arisen. In paragraph 3 of the petition, he has referred to the earlier proceedings and had stated that he was filing a revision petition in the High Court against the order of the appellate authority. In paragraph 4, he stated that in the previous proceedings the tenant had tendered a sum of Rs. 200 as rent from May 1, 1965, to December 31, 1965, along with Rs. 5 as interest and Rs. 30 as costs of the previous application for ejectment, but that the tenant had not paid any amount of house -tax. In paragraph 5 of the petition, the landlord stated that the tenant had not paid the rent from January 1, 1966, and had "also not paid the house -tax, which has been reimposed from 1st April, 1965". The details of the amount for the non -payment of which eviction was sought were then given in paragraph 6 in the following words - 6. That the rent from 1st January, 1966 to 30th June, 1967, amounting to Rs. 450 has become due to the Applicant from the Respondent No. 1. Moreover, a sum of Rs. 54 as house -tax from 1st April, 1965 to 31st March, 1967 has also fallen due. The Respondent No. 1 is not paying this amount in spite of repeated requests.;