M/S. JYOTI PRASHAD VINOD KUMAR AND ANR. versus YASH PAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 187 · Decided: 23-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

M/S. JYOTI PRASHAD VINOD KUMAR AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
YASH PAL AND ORS. 
AUGUST 23, 1996 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.) 
B 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 : 
Section 8( 1 )-Second proviso-Necessary conditions for applicability of 
second proviso-Tenant-ATTears of rent including taxes-Valid tender by C 
tenant-Landlord seeking tenants eviction for failure to pay increased rate of 
house tax-Notice not served on the tenant under registered cover as 
prescribed by statute-Eviction order by Appellate Authority-High Court 
affinned the eviction orde~Appeal-Held in the absence of a valid notice 
tenants were under ni:J obligation to tender house tax along with an-ears of 
rent-Eviction of tenant held uncalled for-Eviction order set aside-Held D 
liability to pay increased. rent due to increase in tax was prospective. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11499 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.95 of the Punjab and E 
Haryana in C.R. No. 4928 of 1994. 
R.K. Jain, S.C. Jindal and N.A. Siddiqui for the Appellants. 
R.P. Bhatt, Sanjay Sarin and Ms. Rekha Palli for the Respondents. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
This is an appeal against the judgment and order of a learned Single 
Judge of the '"1igh Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 26.5.1995, passed G 
in Civil Revision No. 4928/94, dismissing the revision petition of the present 
appellants in iimine. 
I 
The facts as are relevant for our purpose are as follows : 
In an evf ction petition, raising a number of ground, the sole surviving H 
' 
187 
188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
one was : whether the tenants had made a valid tender of arrears of rent, 
inclusive of taxes. The period for which arrears of rent were claimed was 
from 1.4.1984 till 30.9.1986. So far as the quantum of contractual rent was 
concerned, that indisputably was paid before the Rent Controller. The 
dispute centered around the payment of house-tax. It is undisputed that 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
the house-tax was payable w.e.f. 1.4.1985. The fact that the Said house-tax 
could form part of the rent, was never disputed. Section 8(1) of the 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 provides for this 
eventuality, which is worth reproduction at this stage, which reads: 
"8. INCREASE OF RENT ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF 
RATES, ETC. OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY - (1) Not-
withstanding anything contained in any other provision of the Act, 
a landlord shall be entitled to increase the rent of a building or 
rented land if after the commencement of the tenancy, 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 this Act. 
Provided that increase in rent shall not exceed the amount of 
any such rate, cess or tax or the amount of increase in such rate, 
cess or. tax, as the case may be : 
Provided further that such increase in rent shall be payable by 
the tenant from the date of despatch of the written notice of 
demand sent by the landlord under registered cover. · 
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time 
being in force or any contract, no landlord shall recover from his 
tenant the amount of any rate, cess or tax or any portion thereof 
in respect of any building or rented land occupied by such tenant 
by any increase in the amount of the rent payable or otherwise, 
save as provided in sub-section (1)." 
Specific attention need be invited to the second proviso which man-
dates that increase in rent due to levy or increase in rate, cess or tax 
payable by the tenant i1s not automatic from the date of levy but permissible 
from the date of despatch of the written notice of demand. The liability 
transferred is thus prospective. There are evidently three important ele-
H ments from the proviso to be operative, namely (i) on the happening of the 
. JYOTIPRASHADVINODKRv. YASHPAL 
event there shall be a despatch of written notice of demand; (ii) it must be'· A 
. sent by the landlord under registered cover; and (iii) the increased rent 
shall be payable by the tenant from the date of"despatch of demand letter 
and not from a date earlier. It is; thus, patently clear that even if a fresh . 
rate, cess or tax had been levied in respect of the demised building or 
rented land, unless the demand is made in terms 'of the 2nd proviso, it
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.