JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. Instant writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 17/02/2021 passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan First (Raj.), whereby the Civil Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 03/09/2019 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan allowing the Rent Application filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act, 2001, has been dismissed and the order dated 03/09/2019 has been affirmed.

2. The directions were issued to vacate the premises within a period of three months.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-tenant had filed an application under Section 27 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act read with Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 and Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act alleging that the lease deed could not have been taken on record as it was not registered. The application was allowed vide order dated 23/09/2015 by the learned Rent Tribunal. It was further submitted that the dispute was not maintainable before the Rent Tribunal and the rent was increased from Rs. 6,500/- per month under the terms of the lease deed after every year by 5% and thus, the provisions of the Rent Control Act would not apply and the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was wrongly issued.

4. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent landlord submitted that the landlord has become very old and is almost 91 years of age and his wife is about 87 years of age and both have been trying since long to get the premises evicted. Learned counsel informed that the petitioner is not living in the rented premises and has put it in lock and key and only continuing this litigation to harass the respondents whose children do not live with them. The petitioner, in one way of other, wants to get hold of the property by raising frivolous objections. Learned counsel further submitted that there is admittedly a relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties and both the Courts below have reached to a conclusion that the tenant is liable to be evicted. The issue with regard to lease deed being registered is not required to be gone into as the house was given on rent on a sum of Rs. 6,500/- per month for a period of 11 months. It was also mentioned that as per the terms of the lease deed if the tenancy continues for more than 12 months, a new lease deed will have to be executed and the rent will be increased by 5%. However, the petitioner neither executed any new lease deed nor he increased the rent although he was required to pay the enhanced rent. Learned counsel also informed that the petitioner creates nuisance and also wants to use the house for commercial purpose and harass the landlord. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Srivastava, (2001) 2 SCC 604 to submit that the landlord should not be penalized for slowness of the legal system.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. In Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Srivastava (supra), the Apex Court has observed and held as under:-

"15. The judicial tardiness, for which unfortunately our system has acquired notoriety, causes the lis to creep through the line for long long years from the start to the ultimate termini, is a malady afflicting the system. During this long interval many many events are bound to take place which might happen in relation to the parties as well as the subject matter of the lis. If the cause of action is to be submerged in such subsequent events on account of the malady of the system it shatters the confidence of the litigant, despite the impairment already caused.

16. Of course a two-Judge Bench (K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ) pointed out in another case Ansuyaben Kantilal Bhatt vs. Rashiklal Manilal Shah that the pendency of a lis for a record period of thirty one years has transf