G. Rajinder Singh v. Manjit Singh

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. July 08, 2010 R.S. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge