Judgment:
R.A. Mehta, J.
1. The petitioner-Tenant has preferred this application against the order of the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda, allowing the Civil Revision Application No. 38 of 1983 filed by the landlord and directing the petitioner-Tenant to pay or deposit in the Court all municipal taxes, education cess, land revenue amounting to Rs. 66,295.56 and continue to deposit municipal taxes as per the municipal bills as agreed upon by them by virtue of the agreement Clauses 4 and 5 in addition to the monthly rent of Rs. 1200/- and to that extent, the order below Ex. 19 was modified and the petitioner-Tenant was given one month's time to deposit the amount of arrears of taxes. That order was passed on March 8, 1985.
2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that an order under Section 11(4) was already passed fixing the interim standard rent of Rs. 1200/-per month and thereafter another application under Section 11(4) in respect of municipal taxes was not maintainable. It is also submitted that while fixing the interim standard rent, the Court had no jurisdiction to include the payment of taxes because taxes are not rent and, therefore, the order of the learned Assistant Judge is without jurisdiction and he has, therefore, erred in reversing the order of the trial Court. The trial Court had rejected the application of the landlord on the ground that municipal taxes were not the subject-matter of suit and that even in the application Ex. 19, the plaintiff-landlord had not prayed for depositing the amount of taxes in the Court.
3. The lower appellate Court has rightly pointed out that the tenant had been paying the municipal taxes directly to the authorities and, therefore, the plaintiff was not required to make that claim in the plaint or in the application for fixing the interim standard rent. However, after the trial Court fixed the interim standard rent at Rs. 1200/- per month, the defendant-Tenant stopped paying any taxes to the municipal corporation and other authorities and huge amount of taxes was in arrears and the property of the landlord was attached and put to auction and, therefore, the landlord was required to pay huge amount of taxes amounting to Rs. 66.000/- and odd. Therefore, on March 14, 1983, the landlord made an application for modification of the earlier order fixing the interim standard rent at Rs. 1200/- per month and for directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of taxes also failing which the defence would be struck off.
4. It is obvious and even undisputed that as per Clause 5 of the agreement between the parties, municipal and other taxes in respect of the suit premises are to be borne and paid by the tenant. It is also not disputed that such taxes have been paid by the tenant prior to filing of the suit being H R.R Suit No. 230 of 1977 and it is only after the order of the trial Court fixing the interim standard rent at Rs. 1200/- per month that the defendant stopped making payment to the municipal corporation and as the liability had substantially accumulated, the municipal corporation held the landlord primarily liable for the amount of arrears of tax and the landlord had no option but to pay this amount to the municipal corporation with a view to save his property from being auctioned. Therefore, a clear case was made out for modification of the order fixings interim standard rent where the question of taxes was not taken into consideration and the tenant who had been directly paying the municipal taxes had stopped paying such taxes and all these things had arisen during the pendency of the suit and a clear case was made out for modification and the Court did have the jurisdiction to modify the order if sufficient cause was shown and such sufficient cause was shown.
5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the taxes are not included in the rent and, therefore, under Section 11(4), such order cannot be passed. This argument has no merit whatsoever.
6. According to Section 11(4) rent is the consideration for which the premises are let by the lessor to the lessee and the consideration is a specified amount per month plus other amounts under different heads such as taxes. Rent includes permitted increases and the permitted increases are statutorily recognised increases in taxes. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the taxes are not included in the rent. Even under Section 11(3), when the tenant is liable to pay a monthly rent and taxes, it is a case of rent not payable by month but the rent is payable by year because the liability to pay the tax is on the tenant. Therefore, mere is no merit in the argument that the taxes are not included in the rent.
7. These were the only contentions raised and they fail. Hence, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed with costs. Interim relief is vacated. The petitioner-Tenants are directed to deposit all the arrears of municipal and other taxes upto date within one month from today and continue to deposit future taxes regularly If the petitioners-Tenants fail to deposit the aforesaid amount, they will be subject to the same consequences which follow for not depositing the arrears of rent and taxes as per the order below Ex. 19. Order below Ex. 19 stands modified accordingly and the order of the Extra Assistant Judge, Baroda is confirmed. Rule discharged.