IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2837 of 1994 Date of decision: 28th July, 2010 Dharam Raj … Petitioner Versus Prem Chand and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Petitioner instituted an eviction petition against one Dhari on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent and house-tax since the month of August 1986. It was stated that the tenant was inducted at a monthly rent of Rs.450/- besides the house-tax, vide rent-note executed between the parties on 12th May, 1979. The second ground pleaded for causing ejectment of the tenant was that he had changed the use of premises in question. It was stated that he was running a workshop and had installed a Bhatti without the consent of the landlord. Thirdly, it was urged that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the property and had also replaced the portion of the roof of the property in question without the consent of the landlord, thereby created alteration and nuisance. The tenant, on appearance, had denied all these allegations. One of the questions considered by the Rent Controller, Kaithal was as to whether the tenant was liable to pay the house-tax or not. The landlord proved rent-note Ex.A1 by examining Sat Parkash, Deed-writer as AW-1. Raj Kumar, an attesting witness to the rent-note Civil Revision No.2837 of 1994 Ex.A1 also appeared as AW-2. The landlord himself appeared as AW-3 and justified that besides the rent of Rs.450/- per month, the tenant was liable to pay the house-tax. After the evidence of landlord was closed, the tenant appeared as RW-1 and stated that the monthly rent was Rs.450/- and there was no liability on his part to pay the house-tax. He proved the rent-receipts in a copy as Ex.R1 from page No.1 to 14. It was further stated that he had already paid the rent for the months of November and December, 1986 but no rent-receipt was issued by the landlord. The Rent Controller, after examining the copy Ex.R1 and relying upon the rent-note Ex.A1, came to a conclusion that the tenant was liable to pay the house-tax. Another question, which arose before the Rent Controller was that in case the tenant was liable to pay the house-tax, as to whether the tender made by him was invalid and short, or not. The Rent Controller further held that the tenant had made a tender of rent with effect from 1st November, 1986 to 31st August, 1987 and the same was accepted by the landlord. Therefore, it was held that the excess amount paid by the tenant was not subject to automatic adjustment. This finding returned by the Rent Controller was assailed by the tenant in an appeal. After considering the evidence, the appellate authority returned the following finding: “11. Apart from the above discussion, the tenant’s own evidence goes to prove that he had been paying the house tax of the premises over and above the rent. The tenant himself placed on record the exercise book Ex.R1 and it contains receipts upto page No.14 which the landlord issued to the tenant from time to time after taking the rent and house tax from the tenant. It is particularly necessary to mention that in all these receipts, it is written that the rent as well as house tax had been paid by the tenant. In the first seven receipts even the amount of house tax paid therein and that amounted to 10% of the rent was specifically entered in the receipts. The tenant having adduced this 2 Civil Revision No.2837 of 1994 evidence himself on record cannot now validly urge that he was not liable to pay house tax. It is important that this point needs to be decided against the tenant even if we ignore the contents of the rent note.” The appellate authority further came to a conclusion that the tenant had paid the rent in excess for a period of one month. It was observed by the appellate authority as under: “16. In the above view of the matter the excess rent for one month so paid by the tenant is Rs.450/-. The rent due from the tenant on 12.8.1987 was in respect of nine months total of which comes to Rs.4050/-. On this amount the house tax comes to Rs.405/-. It is at the rate of 10% of the rent that the landlord realized the house tax from the tenant in the first seven receipts founding the book Ex.R1. Thus, even after adjusting a sum of Rs.405/- towards the house tax for the period upto 31.7.1987, the landlord is still left with Rs.45/-. In this view of the matter tender made by the tenant cannot be said to be short or invalid.” On one aspect, the Rent Controller and the appellate authority were in agreement that the tenant had paid one month’s rent in excess. However, the Rent Controller held that the amount paid in excess could not be adjusted automatically until an application to this effect was filed. This finding of the Rent Controller had not been accepted by the appellate authority and it was held that the law of adjustment was in favour of the tenant. I am in agreement with the finding recorded by the appellate authority that the rent paid in excess can be adjusted towards the payment of house-tax. Thus, the grievance made by the petitioner- landlord that the appellate authority had acted erroneously in reversing the finding of the Rent Controller, is liable to be rejected. 3 Civil Revision No.2837 of 1994 Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 28, 2010 rps 4