Once the property is vested in the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, the relationship of landlord and tenant ceases to exist, and no petition under section 13 of the Rent Act can be maintained.

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.

1. Invoking the provisions of sub-section 6 of section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter to be referred as "the Rent Act"), Harjinder Singh petitioner-tenant (hereafter to be referred as "the tenant") has directed the present revision petition against the impugned order dated 02.11.2006, vide which the Appellate Authority has set aside the order of Rent Controller and accepted the eviction petition of Ved Parkash respondent- landlord (hereinafter to be referred as "the landlord") and he (tenant) was ordered to be ejected from the demised premises (booth).

2. The matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal, of present petition and emanating from the record, is that originally, the landlord filed a petition under section 13 of the Rent Act for eviction of the tenant, inter-alia, pleading that the tenant took the demised premises for 11 months at a monthly rent of Rs.l100/- with effect from 28.7.1992, vide rent note of even date with clear stipulation that 10% of the rent was to be increased after expiry of every 11 months. According to the landlord, the tenant did not pay the rent with effect from 28.07.1998 till the filing of the petition and, thus, he is in arrears of rent of Rs.45,984/-.

3. Leveling variety of allegations in all, according to the landlord, as the tenant is in arrears of rent in question, therefore, he is liable to be evicted from the demised premises. He asked him to pay the arrears of rent, but in vain, which necessitated him (landlord) to file the ejectment petition against the tenant in the manner indicated here-in-above.

4. The tenant contested the ejectment petition and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the petition, being false and frivolous, not properly verified and the objection of jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to try and adjudicate the matter in dispute, as the land had already been acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as "the HUDA"). The landlord ceases to be owner of demised premises after its acquisition and he cannot resort to the ejectment proceedings under the Rent Act.

5. On merits, it was claimed by the tenant that since no rent note was executed, so question of any enhancement of rent did not arise. He has already paid monthly rent, but the landlord did not issue any receipt in this respect. Nothing is due towards him. It will not be out of place to mention here that the tenant had stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the ejectment petition and prayed for its dismissal.

6. Controverting the allegations of the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the petition, the landlord filed the replication. However, the factum of acquisition of the demised premises was admitted by the landlord.

7. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues vide order dated 1.5.2003:-

"1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises in question, on the ground as alleged in the petition? OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

3. Relief."

8. Thereafter, the case was slated for evidence of the landlord.

9. In order to substantiate the grounds of eviction, the landlord has stepped into the witness box as his own witness as AW1, who has rendered into the evidence copy of rent note Ex Al. Thereafter, his evidence was closed by order of the Court.

10. The tenant, in order to rebut the evidence brought on record by the landlord, himself appeared as his own witness as RW1.

11. The Rent Controller decided issue No.l against the landlord, while issue No.2 was decided in favour of the tenant. As a sequel of findings on the aforesaid issues, the Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition of the landlord vide order dated 31.1.2006.

12. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Cont