Full Judgment
Sudhir Narain, J.
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 land lord-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 monthtowards 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 revlsional 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 whichincluded 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 reliefs 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 lessor provides other amenities or furniture in addition to the accommodation which has been let out. unless the intention of the parties is that the amount fixed for providing such amenities be also treated as rent, the amount taken separately for furniture and other amenities may not form part of rent. Normally the electricity charges are taken by the landlord for the purpose that he is providing electricity to the tenant and for such facility, he has to pay the amount of electricity charges to the Electricity Board or such authority from whom the electricity connection has been taken and the landlord is liable to pay for the consumption of electricity by the tenant. In absence of any specific agreement or proof in this respect. It cannot always be termed that the amount of electricity charges forms part of the rent,
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the decision Puspa Sen Gupta v. Susma Ghose, 1990 ACJ 607, wherein It has been held that the additional sum of Rs. 8 per month agreed by the tenant to be paid to the landlord may amount as part of the rent. This was based on the interpretation of the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act. This case has no application to the facts of the present case where the plaintiff has to prove that the amount was liable to be paid by the petitioner as part of the rent.
7. The next question is as to whether the tenant is also liable to deposit the amount of electricity charges for claiming the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act provides thatwater tax shall form part of the rent. In Kumud Kumar Kaushtk v. IVth Additional District Judge, Ghaztabad and others, 1991 (2) ARC 354. it has been held that for claiming the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. a tenant is not required to deposit the amount of house and water tax. Similarly, the tenant while claiming the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act is not required to deposit the amount of electricity charges. The petitioner having deposited the entire amount of rent as claimed in the relief clause (b) of the plaint, is entitled to the benefit of provision of Section 20(4) of the Act.
8. In view of the above, the writ petitfon is partly allowed. The orders passed by the Courts below dated 30.8.1991 and 21.2.1998 in respect of ejectment of the petitioner are hereby quashed.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.