Allahabad High Court
Mangli Prasad vs Smt. Parvati @ Chidana on 9 April, 2013
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
(Judgment reserved on 4.4.2013)
(Judgment delivered on 9.4.2013)
Court No. - 21
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 2 of 2006
Petitioner :- Mangli Prasad
Respondent :- Smt. Parvati @ Chidana
Petitioner Counsel :- Shafiq Mirza
Respondent Counsel :- Ganga Prasad Mishra
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
At the time of hearing no one appeared for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the tenant applicant.
This revision is directed against judgment and decree dated 19.12.2005 passed by Judge Small Causes Court/IInd Additional District Judge, Gonda in S.C.C. Suit No.4 of 2000 Smt. Parvati vs. Mangali Prasad. The suit had been instituted by the landlady respondent against tenant applicant for eviction from the tenanted house in dispute and arrears of rent. It was stated in the plaint that rate of rent was Rs.300/- per month apart from water tax and that rent was due from 1.9.1990. However, it was further stated that as rent for the period prior to three years from the date of filing of the suit had become time barred hence rent from 1.10.1997 till 30.9.2000 was being claimed amounting to Rs.10,800/- Apart from it Rs.1,080/- were claimed as water tax. Prior to filing of the suit tenancy was terminated through notice which was served upon the tenant on 12.10.2000.
The tenant filed written statement and pleaded that the rate of rent was Rs.50/- per month which also included the water tax. He pleaded that tenancy was continuing since 1962. The accommodation in dispute consists of two rooms, veranda, aangan and bath room. Tenant stated that he had paid the rent till September, 2000 and that rent for October, 2000 was sent through money order which was refused by the landlady hence he deposited the same under Section 30 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. He also stated that he had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the landlady from evicting him forcibly. The tenant asserted that rent receipts were never issued by the landlady. Regarding rate of rent court below held that rate of rent was Rs.50/- per month as asserted by the tenant. The tenant in his oral statement stated that it was orally agreed that rate of rent would be Rs.50/- per month which would also include the water tax. The court below under Issue no.2 held that in view of Section-7 of U.P.Urban Building Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) in the absence of any written contract water tax would be payable apart from the rent. Section-7 starts with words "subject to any contract in writing to the contrary..... the tenant shall be liable to pay to the landlord in addition to and as part of the rent.... the water tax."
I do not find any error in the finding of the court below that in view of Section-7 of the Act tenant was liable to pay water tax apart from Rs.50/- per month rent. Accordingly, it was rightly held that tenant was defaulter in not paying water tax which by virtue of aforesaid Section-7 of the Act is part of the rent.
Under Issue no.4 it was held that tenant was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs.50/- per month and water tax with effect from 1.10.1997. In view of the finding of the court below that tenant had not paid any rent to the landlady (landlady had asserted that rent had not been paid since January, 1990) tenant was required to deposit time barred rent also in order to avail the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. However, as the court below has not considered the said aspect hence it is not necessary in this revision to pursue the said point further.
I fully agree with the view taken by the court below that tenant was required to pay water tax in addition to Rs.50/- per month and as he had not paid the same hence he was defaulter.
Accordingly, there is no merit in the revision hence it is dismissed.
Tenant-applicant is granted six months time to vacate provided that:-
1. Within one month from today tenant files an undertaking before the J.S.C.C. to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlady-respondent.
2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-applicant to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 6,000/-( at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the J.S.C.C. and shall immediately be paid to the landlady-respondent.
3. Within one month from today tenant shall deposit entire decreetal amount due till date before J.S.C.C. for immediate payment to landlady respondent.
In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-applicant shall be evicted through process of Court after one month and shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation.
Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing decreetal amount and Rs.6000/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month since after six months till actual vacation. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and execution application.
Order Date :- 9.4.2013
RS
