The court affirmed that a registered sale deed is decisive in establishing landlord-tenant relationships, overriding claims based on wills or agreements without proper legal standing.

Order

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 18.08.2015, passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, and the order dated 01.06.2016, passed by Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner.The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001, for eviction of the premise-residential house, on the ground of, default in payment of rent. The application of the respondent was allowed by the Rent Eviction Tribunal, holding that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant and as such, the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the property-residential house within three months from the order and further the arrears of rent of Rs. 43,200/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum, was also required to be paid by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner felt aggrieved against the order dated 18.08.2015, and he preferred appeal before the Appellate Forum and his appeal has also been dismissed by order dated 01.06.2016.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue of landlord and tenant relationship, has wrongly been decided by both the Courts below, as the petitioner was himself, the owner of the disputed property.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation of the non-petitioner to be in possession since 1992, as the owner, was not proved and even no rent was ever paid by the petitioner to the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original allottee of the property was one Rajendra Kumar Jain and the petitioner had last will in his favour from the original allottee and as such, he acquired ownership of the disputed premise.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale deed dated 09.01.2006, claiming title in favour of the non-petitioner was a frivolous document and the same did not create any right in his favour against the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:-

1. That the Courts below have committed serious error in deciding issue relating to relationship of the petitioner and the non-petitioner, as landlord and tenant. The document relied by the Courts below i.e. exhibit 9 & 10 were not complete document to find out title in favour of the respondent, as the document in question-agreement dated 13.10.1992, executed by the original owner-allottee-Rajender Kumar Jain in favour of the one Anil Badwal, was not having any amount of consideration being made in the said agreement at page no.3 and there was also overwriting/cutting in the name.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that another document-exhibit 10, relied by the Courts below was the will executed by Rajender Kumar Jain, in favour of Anil Badwal, where, there was a cutting and the said will was a frivolous document and could not have been relied upon.

2. The petitioner had proved his ownership on the basis of document in his favour i.e. will, agreement and power of attorney.

3. The Court below could not have been swayed only on the basis of sale deed in favour of the non-petitioner as seller of the property i.e. Anil Badwal, had no right to execute the sale deed.

4. The non-petitioner had sent a notice to the petitioner dated 06.12.2005, claiming rent and ownership of the property, however, the sale deed was executed on 09.01.2006, and in spite of such fact being proved that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, the non-petitioner has been declared owner of the property and eviction order has also been passed.

5. The Rent Tribunal in view of serious dispute of relationship between the petitioner and the non-petitioner of landlord and tenant, could not have decided the complex issue and the matter should have been referred to the Civil Court as the eviction proceedings, are summary in nature.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment passed by this Court in S.B. Civ