JUDGMENT
H.S. Bedi, J.
1. This petition arises out of an order dated 10.10.1983 made under Section 19(1)(3) read with Section 9(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). As per the averments made in the application, which has been filed by the tenant, he was in occupation of a house belonging to the landlord-petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. The landlord filed an application for ejectment against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent and house tax. In order to avoid his eviction, the tenant tendered a sum of Rs. 1040/- towards rent, Rs. 40/- as interest, Rs. 94/- as house tax and Rs. 40/- as cost in Court on 15.4.1983, on which the application for ejectment was dismissed on that date. The tenant thereafter filed the present application pleading that as no house tax for the year 1982-83 was leviable, the sum of Rs. 94/- taken by the landlord on that count was without authority and as such the landlord was liable to be prosecuted under Section 19 of the Act. The landlord admitted that the aforesaid amount had in fact under a misconception, been accepted by him, but was it further pleaded that he had not been aware of the fact that for the year 1982-83 the building in question had been exempted from the payment of house tax. The Rent Controller disbelieving the statement of the landlord allowed the application by the impugned order and directed that he be prosecuted.
2. This matter came up for motion hearing on 12.3.1984, on which date notice was issued and the operation of the impugned order was stayed meanwhile. The respondent though served, remains un-represented before me today.
3. I have heard Mr. Ashok Jindal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order.
4. Admittedly the house tax was earlier leviable on the building in question, but a notification, granting exemption for the year 1982-83 was issued. It is in this background, the landlord had contended that he had taken the house tax under a mistaken impression as he had been accepting it for the year 1.1.1962 to 31.3.1967, 1975-76 and 1976-77. The relevant provisions of Sections 9 and 19 both are reproduced below:-
“9. Increase of rent on account of payment of rates, etc. of local authority, but rent not to be increased on account of payment of other taxes, etc.- (1) Notwithstanding anything taxes, in any other provision of this Act a landlord shall be entitled to increase the rent of a building or rented land if after the commencement of this Act a fresh rate, cess or tax is levied in respect of the building or rented land by any local authority, or if there is an increase in the amount of such a rate, cess or tax being levied at the commencement of the Act.”
“19. Penalties.- (1) It any person contravenes any of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 9, Sub-section (1) of Section 10 Section 11 or Section 18, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
(2) If any person contravenes any of the provisions of Clause (a) of Sub-section 1 of Section 6 or Sub-section (1) of Sub-section 7 he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years and with fine.
(3) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this section except upon-
(a) a complaint of facts which constitute such offence filed with the sanction of the controller in writing, or
(b) a report in writing of such facts made by the Controller.”
5. A reading of Section 9(1) would reveal that a landlord is entitled to an increase
in the rent on the increase of the house tax etc. It does not deal with a situation whereby
the landlord has recovered the house tax from the tenant on account of a misconception.
Admittedly, the landlord has not tried to increase the rent, but he has by mistake taken
the house tax for the year 1982-83 when the building had been exempted from house
tax for that year. Admittedly the house tax had been levied and paid for several years
earlier. At most, therefore, it can be said that the landlord has committed a mistake in
accepting the aforesaid amount. In this situation the order impugned is not sustainable.
This petition is allowed and the application filed by the tenant is dismissed.