AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IT is a moot question whether the tax due to a municipality will fall within the definition of rent. We do not think we need to adjudicate on the point. The reason is there is a case where the appellant had agreed to pay the municipal tax as part of rent. This is obvious from the following statement in the counter:
"IT is true that the respondent agreed to pay the municipal tax. The respondent had always been ready and willing to pay the municipal tax but the petitioner has not passed the municipal demand notice before paying the same to pay the tax by the respondent or tax receipt after the payment to enable the respondent to reimburse the petitioner in spite of repeated requests by the respondent."
The only plea was that the landlord did not furnish him the demand made by the municipality. In fact this stand of the tenant is reiterated when he was examined as Public Witness 1. He states as under:
"EVEN at the beginning of the payment of rent, it was agreed that the tax should be paid by me. Originally I paid an advance of Rs. 200.00 which was collected for house tax. I knew that the house tax is being levied once in every 6 months. Only in the year 1984 I came to know that the half-yearly tax for my shop was Rs. 57.80."
Therefore, if the parties had so adjusted the affairs that the rent should include the municipal tax as well, it is not open to the tenant to raise the larger question. All the courts below have found by non-payment of tax, the tenant has committed default in payment of arrears of rent which is purely a factual finding in which we cannot interfere. The Civil stands dismissed. No costs.