Civil Revision No. 3329 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3329 of 2004 Date of decision: 08.07.2010 G. Rajinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Manjit Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. N.S. Sitta, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition, by the landlord, is directed against the order dated 3.3.2004, passed by the learned appellate authority, Rupnagar, vide which the appeal filed by the respondent-tenant against the order of eviction, was accepted. The petitioner-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short 'the Act') seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant by pleading therein, that the petitioner was the owner of shop No.9 situated in the area of College Road, Ropar, within the municipal limits of Ropar, which was given on rent to the respondent @ Rs.2,200/- (Rupees two thousand and two hundred) per month for a period of 11 months and 28 days. The rent agreement was executed on 6.8.1999. The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent by asserting that the lease agreement was not renewed and the respondent-tenant was, therefore, in illegal possession over the shop in dispute. The tenant had failed to increase the rent as agreed to and to Civil Revision No. 3329 of 2004 -2- pay the municipal tax, water charges etc. The non-payment of these taxes was said to be negligence on the part of the respondent-tenant. The case of the petitioner was that he had requested the tenant to renew the agreement and increase the rent but he failed to do so, therefore, the petition. The petition was contested, wherein the respondent-tenant took preliminary objection, that the petition was not maintainable in the present form. On merits it was pleaded that the tenant was paying the rent regularly and had not violated the terms of the agreement dated 6.8.1999. The respondent-tenant admitted the execution of the agreement dated 6.8.1999 as also the rate of rent fixed i.e. Rs.2,200/- (Rupees two thousand and two hundred) per month. The respondent denied being in illegal possession. Other averments on merit were denied. After the rejoinder was filed, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues: - “1. Whether the respondent has intentionally violated the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 6.8.1999? OPP 2. Whether the respondent is in illegal possession of the shop in dispute as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the respondent has failed to pay the municipal tax and water charges etc.? OPP 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in its present form? OPR 5. Relief.” The reading of the issues shows that the issues framed by the Civil Revision No. 3329 of 2004 -3- learned Rent Controller were not properly framed, as under the Act, the learned Rent Controller could evict the tenant only on the grounds given in Section 13 of the Act, and on no other ground. The learned Rent Controller, however, on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent-tenant has violated the terms of the agreement dated 6.8.1999 and was in illegal possession of the shop in dispute. It was further held, that as the respondent-tenant had failed to pay the municipal tax and water charges, therefore, was liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute, by holding the petition under the Act to be maintainable. In appeal, the learned appellate authority set aside the judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller by holding, that once the petition under Section 13 of the Act was filed, the relationship of landlord and tenant stood admitted, therefore, the respondent-tenant could not be said to be in illegal possession of the premises, as held by the learned Rent Controller. The learned appellate authority further held, that the taxes referred to above by the petitioner were, in fact, the liability of the landlord, as there was no liability under the agreement stipulating payment of house tax or other taxes by tenant. Furthermore no notice was given by the petitioner for increasing the rent by disclosing the imposition of any house tax or other taxes after the creation of tenancy. In order to record this finding, the learned appellate authority placed reliance on the following judgments: - “(1) Damodar Valley Corporation Vs. Mrityunjoy Basu, 1995(2) RCR 350; Civil Revision No. 3329 of 2004 -4- (2) Shri Chhote Lal Vs. Shri Kewal Krishan Mehta, 1971 RCR 318 (SC) and (3) Inder Kumar and others Vs. Gita Devi, 1978(1) RCR 126” The learned appellate authority reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller holding that the respondent-tenant was in illegal possession, and that he had violated the terms of the agreement. The finding that the respondent-tenant was in arrears of municipal tax and waters charges, was also set aside. Mr. N.S. Sitta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, challenged the impugned order on the ground that the learned appellate authority failed to notice, that there was no proof of payment of house tax by the tenant, therefore, he was in arrears of rent, thus, was liable to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of rent. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for two reasons; Firstly for the reason that even if it was to be held that the tenant was liable to pay house tax or any other tax, still it was incumbent upon the learned Rent Controller to assess the provisional rent and thereafter give an opportunity to the tenant to pay the rent on the date fixed and no order of eviction could be passed. Secondly there is no merit in the contention raised, as in order to succeed in claim of house tax or any other tax, it was incumbent upon the petitioner, to issue a notice to the tenant, for increase or rent specifically on account of increase in house tax, after the commencement of tenancy. In absence of such notice or agreement, the petitioner was not entitled to claim any amount over and above the rate Civil Revision No. 3329 of 2004 -5- agreed to, as per the provisions of the Rent Act, which bars the landlord to claim any amount over and above the rent fixed. Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as under: - “116. Effect of holding over. - If a lessee or under- lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under-lessee, or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession, the lessee, is in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in section 106.” The reading of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property would show that in case the tenant continues to be in possession by holding over, then he is to be treated as statutory tenant on the terms and conditions originally agreed to between the parties. Reading of rent-note Annexure P-1 shows that there was no stipulation in the said agreement, that the tenant was to pay any tax except electricity charges. It is not in dispute that the respondent-tenant was paying the rent regularly, and no rent due from the tenant. The findings recorded by appellate authority are in consonance with settled law, which calls for no interference by this Court. For the reasons stated, there is no merit in this revision, which is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 08, 2010 R.S.