Section 2 (i) and 13 tenants (appellant) were summoned on the basis of non-payment of water and allegations of conservatism for the payment of the charges. ) Dismissed the removal filing application. The court agreed with the rental controller's High Court results, set aside the concurrent results of the courts below in its constitutional jurisdiction and said that it was paying the water and conservation charges to the tenant (appellant). The landlord was submitted that the tenant had received a bill from the Water and Sewerage Board regarding non-payment of charges, which demanded payment of such charges. The tenant agreed to pay the aforesaid charges at the beginning of the tenancy and signed a rental receipt that contained a printed clause on the reverse of the water and conservancy charges, the valid term for the rent between the parties. There was nothing legal on the record until the eviction case was filed that either the tenant was charged with water and conservancy charges or under what was ever paid for the matter. The landlord acknowledged that the receipt of the rent was not signed by the tenant and said that the receipt This fact can be corroborated by a trivial theory. Lenladi also admitted that he was not sure whether there was a written agreement between the parties. A notice was given to the tenant in respect of non-payment of water and other charges, etc., and
