ORDER :

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal impugns judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana [The High Court] at Chandigarh dated 27.09.2018, whereby the High Court allowed Civil Revision No. 7550 of 2012 filed by the respondent under Section 15 (5) of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [The 1949 Act] and set aside the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

4. In short, the facts giving rise to this appeal, inter alia, are:

(a) The appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the 1949 Act claiming, inter alia, that - the appellant being the owner of the disputed premises, inducted the respondent as a tenant in the month of June 2007 on a rent of Rs. 5,000 per month; later, vide agreement dated 3.10.2007, the respondent agreed to purchase the premises in question and a date (i.e., 31.10.2007) was fixed for execution /registration of sale deed subject to payment of balance consideration; however, before the said date, on 30.10.2007, a fresh agreement was prepared extending the date up to 30.11.2007; yet, the respondent did not perform his part of the contract and, instead, instituted a suit for specific performance which was decreed on condition that the respondent deposits balance sale consideration within one month from that date of the order (i.e., 10.06.2008); but, despite the aforesaid decree, the respondent did not comply with the condition of deposit, as a result the decree lapsed. In that backdrop, by alleging that the respondent has failed to pay the agreed rent since August 2007, the appellant sought possession as well as arrears of rent.

(b) The respondent contested the aforesaid petition claiming, inter alia, that petition under Section 13 is not maintainable as there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties; that the appellant instituted the suit, mala fide, being annoyed by the decree of specific performance passed against him and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(c) The Rent Controller framed multiple issues. Relevant amongst them are about (a) existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; (b) the rate of rent; and (c) maintainability of the petition.

(d) The appellant examined himself (PW-1) and two other witnesses. From the side of respondent, three witnesses were examined one Bhola Ram (RW 1); a clerk from the Registry Office (RW 2); and respondent himself (RW 3).

(e) The Rent Controller upon consideration of evidence, inter alia, held, vide judgment and order dated 07.12.2020, (i) that their exists landlord-tenant relationship between the parties; (ii) that though a decree of specific performance was passed in favour of the respondent, the sale deed could not be executed as respondent failed to comply with its condition; (iii) that the nature of the premises is such that the rate of rent appears acceptable; (iv) that respondent's own admission discloses that he paid no rent and is therefore in arrears. With the aforesaid findings the eviction petition was allowed.

(f) Against the order of the Rent Controller, the respondent filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.10.2012.

(g) Assailing the orders of the Appellate Authority, the respondent preferred a revision before the High Court, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order.

The High Court's Reasoning –

5. The High Court by a short order allowed the revision primarily on the ground that there is no written note or tenancy agreement be