Full Judgment
N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This revision petition is against the order of the appellate authority dated 13.11.1991 affirming the order of the Rent Controller dated 1.8 1990 whereby the respondent was held to be entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1200/- as house tax and Rs. 340/- as interest from the petitioners or to get the same adjusted in the rent payable by him to the landlord.
2. Briefly put, the petitioners filed a petition for eviction of Raja Ram tenant from the shop detailed in the beading of the petitions on the ground that he is in arrears of rent since 1.10.1983 and is also liable to pay house tax from 1.10.1982 upto date that he is continuous source of nuisance to the neighbours. The respondent put in appearance and tendered the arrears of rent as assessed and the house tax but reserved his right to recover the house tax since the same was not payable by him.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from demised premises on the grounds mentioned in para No. 3 of the petitions OPP.
2. Whether the petition is mala fide OPR.
3. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi OPR.
4. Whether the petitioner is bad for want of particulars ?, OPR
5. Whether the petition is bad for want of notice OPR.
6. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition by his act and conduct OPR.
7. Relief.
4. In the course of proceedings, one of the petitioners, namely, Shiv Kumar made a statement to the effect that he did not want to prosecute the petition and so prayed that the same may be dismissed. However, the respondent had reserved his right to recover the amount of house tax, the petition was kept pending and the matter was examined by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller on the basis of evidence led on record came to the conclusion that no written notice under registered cover had been sent by the landlords and in the absence of such demand, the landlords are not entitled to recover the house tax. Accordingly, the Rent Controller held that the respondent-tenant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1200/- as house tax and Rs. 340/- as interest from the petitioners or get the same adjusted in the rent payable by him.
5. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioners filed an appeal which too was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.11.1991.
6. The petitioners have assailed the correctness of the above impugned orders on the ground that the same were not in conformity with the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 197? (for short 'the Act') and thus liable to be reversed. It is admitted case of the parties that no house tax. was leviable by the Municipal Committee at the inception of the tenancy. It is also admitted case that no such demand was raised by the landlords claiming house tax in addition to the monthly rent by means of any communication through registered cover or otherwise. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgments of this Court in cases reported as Nauhar Chand v. Thakar Dass, 1977 Cur. L. J. 251 and Bhagat Panju Ram and Ors. v. Ram Lal, (1968) 70 P. L. R. 409, has contended that the amount received by the petitioners on account of house tax and the interest thereupon cannot be termed as irrecoverable amount in terms of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act and in this way both the authorities have erred in law in holding that this amount can be recovered from the petitioners or the same cm be adjusted in the rent payable by the respondent. According to tie counsel, the amount of the house tax cannot be termed to be irrecoverable amount under the provisions of the Act. I find no merit in the contention of the, counsel for the petitioners for the reason that any such amount received in excess than permissible under the provisions of the Act can be termed as irrecoverable and the authorities under the Act have right to pass an appropriate order in terms of Section 7 of the Act. In Bhagat Panju Ram's case (supra) the landlord filed an eviction application on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent from 6th of July, 1961 to 10th of January, 1963. The tenant who put in appearance disputed this claim of the land-owner and on the contrary asserted that he had already made payment on 1st of August, 1961 for six months from 5th July, 1961 to 5th of January, 1962, but fearing that he might be ejected, he on the first date of hearing paid the amount as claimed by the land owner. After this payment, the ejectment application was dismissed It is on 21st of March, 1964, that tenant filed a suit for recovery of the amount i.e. a sum of Rs. 720- (Rs. 660/- on account of rent from 5th of July, 1961 to 5th of January, 1962 which had been recovered twice by the defendant and another sum of Rs. 60/- which had been paid by him on account of other expenses.) In the revision petition, the sole point which was agitated was that the dispute was barred by limitation. The precise argument raised was that the suit for recovery of the excess amount is recoverable within six months from the date of such payment in terms of Section 8 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. Since the suit was filed on 21st of March, 1964 i.e. after the expiry of six months period, the same was not within limitation. The Court examined this matter in the context of Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act and came to the conclusion that to recover such payment so made the time to recover such amount is one permissible under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and so held that the suit filed on March 21, 19 64, was within limitation. In Nauhar Chand's case (supra), the Court was examining whether the rent paid in excess by a tenant can be adjusted towards the rent due in respect of the subsequent period and thus the Court came to the conclusion that such an amount cannot be said to be irrecoverable in terms of Section 6 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It was also held that the excess amount cannot be said to be on account of any fine, premium or any other like sum in addition to the rent. The ratio of this judgment is not applicable on the facts of this case.
7. Both the authorities referred to above have no applicability on the facts of the present case. Since no notice had been served by the landowner to recover the house tax alleged to have been levied by the Municipal Committee, such an amount could not be recovered by the landowner in view of Section 7 of the Act. Thus, I find no infirmiiy 'in the orders of the authorities below. The revision petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.