May - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

22
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
6HFWLRQ RI 83 8UEDQ %XLOGLQJ
5HJXODWLRQ RI OHWWLQJ 5HQW DQG (YLFWLRQ $FW
LQ RUGHU WR FODLP WKH EHQHILW RI VHFWLRQ
RI WKH $FW WKH WHQDQW LV QRW UHTXLUHG
WR GHSRVLW WKH DPRXQW RI KRXVH DQG ZDWHU
WD[HV DV ZHOO DV WKH DPRXQW RI (OHFWULFLW\
FKDUJHV
+HOG
)RU FODLPLQJ WKH EHQHILW RI VHFWLRQ RI
WKH $FW D WHQDQW LV QRW UHTXLUHG WR GHSRVLW
WKH DPRXQW RI KRXVH DQG ZDWHU WD[
6LPLODUO\ WKH WHQDQW ZKLOH FODLPLQJ WKH
EHQHILW RI 6HFWLRQ RI WKH $FW LV QRW
UHTXLUHG WR GHSRVLW WKH HQWLUH DPRXQW RI
HOHFWULFLW\ FKDUJHV 7KH SHWLWLRQHU KDYLQJ
GHSRVLWHG WKH HQWLUH DPRXQW RI UHQW DV
FODLPHG LQ WKH UHOLHI FODXVH µE RI WKH SODLQW LV
HQWLWOHG WR WKH EHQHILW RI SURYLVLRQ RI 6HFWLRQ
RI WKH $FWSDUD 7
&DVHV UHIHUUHG
$&- SDJH
$5& SDJH
By the Court
1. This writ petition is directed against the
judgment of the Judge Small Causes Court
dated 30.8.1991 decreeing the suit for
recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment
against the petitioner and the order of the
revisional court dated 21.2.1998 affirming the
findings recorded by the trial court.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the
landlord-respondent filed suit for recovery of
arrears of rent and ejectment with the
allegation that the petitioner was a tenant of
the disputed accommodation on monthly rent
of Rs.50/- besides he was liable to pay Rs.20/-
per month as electricity charges and Rs.7.50
per month towards house and water tax as part
of rent. The tenant failed to pay arrears of rent
after September 1982. He gave a notice
demanding arrears of rent and terminating the
tenancy. The petitioner, after having received
it, did not comply with the same. The
petitioner contested the suit. It was alleged
that the rate of rent was Rs.20/- per month. He
admitted his liability to pay electricity charges
at the rate of Rs.20/- per month as well as
water tax and house tax. He denied that he
had received any notice. The trial court
recorded a finding that the petitioner had
received the notice. The rate of rent was
Rs.50/- per month and in addition to it Rs.20/-
per month as electricity charges and Rs.7.50
per month towards house and water tax as part
of the rent. This finding has been affirmed by
the revisional court.
3. The petitioner had also claimed the
benefit of provision of Section 20(4) of the
Act. He alleged that he had deposited rent at
the rate of Rs.50/- per month on the date of
first hearing with interest and the cost of the
suit. The petitioner has been denied the
benefit of this provision only on the ground
that he had not deposited the amount of
electricity charges along with the rent.
4. The core question is whether the
petitioner is liable to deposit electricity
charges as well to get the benefit of the
provisions of subsection (4) of Section 20 of
the Act. There was no written agreement
between the parties to show that Rs.20/- per
month was being charged towards electricity
charges as part of the rent. The plaintiff and
defendant both appeared in the witness box.
The plaintiff as P.W.4 stated that the
defendant was liable to pay Rs.50/- per month
as the rent of the accommodation, Rs.20/- per
month towards electricity charges and Rs.7.50
per month towards house tax. She nowhere
stated that the electricity charges and the
amount towards house and water tax formed
part of the rent. It was not the case of the
plaintiff that the defendant was liable to pay
Rs.77.50 as rent which included the amount of
electricity charges, house and water tax. The
plaintiff filed the suit claiming the amount of
rent Rs.2,015/- under clause (b) and Rs.720/-
towards electricity charges under clause (d) of
the relief mentioned in the plaint.
5. Section 105 of the Transfer of Properties
Act defines the lease. The lessor is entitled to
get consideration for the lease from the lessee
which is agreed between the parties. In case a