The main legal point established is that the landlord-tenant relationship can continue to subsist despite the execution of a Mortgage Deed, and a tenant's denial of the relationship may not be justified.

JUDGMENT :

SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J.

1. This Revisional Application is directed against the Judgment dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Ld. Appellate Authority, Barnala in Rent Appeal No.05 of 2015 affirming the Judgment of the Rent Controller, vide which the Eviction Petition filed by the Respondent/Landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 had been allowed.

2. The Eviction Petition had been filed on behalf of Respondent/Landlord seeking eviction of the Petitioner/Tenant on the grounds that he had defaulted in payment of rent for the period between 1.4.2010 to 31.5.2012, and that the Landlord required the demised premises for his own use and occupation, since he was an unemployed Graduate without any source of income; and he was a Student of Law, but had to leave his studies on account of an accident; but after regaining his health he was not in a position to continue to resume his studies, and wanted to start his own business being an already married man with one daughter.

3. It was also pleaded in the Eviction Petition that after having defaulted in payment of rent, the Tenant had filed a Civil Suit on false allegations against the Landlord on 15.4.2011, in which, he had falsely and motivatedly claimed the rate of rent being at Rs.1200/- per month instead of actual rent of Rs.3000/- per month. In addition, it was also pleaded that with ill-intention and greed, the Tenant/present Petitioner had got executed a Deed of Mortgage from the Landlord in his favour for a mortgage amount of Rs.10,000/- on 16.5.2011, which was got registered on 6.6.2011, but had thereafter resiled from its contents and on the contrary, had filed an Application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure with a view to harass the Landlord for his alleged violation of the Injunction Order granted in the said Civil Suit filed on 15.4.2011.

4. Both the Ld. Courts below held that the present Petitioner/Tenant was not liable to be evicted on the ground of default in payment of rent, since he had admittedly paid up the entire arrears and current rent till the disposal of the Eviction Petition. He was nevertheless found liable to be evicted since the Respondent/Landlord had been able to make out a successful case of bonafide personal necessity of the demised premises for occupation by himself and his family. The evidence led on behalf of the Landlord in this regard went virtually unchallenged.

5. The Eviction Petition was nevertheless strongly resisted on behalf of the Petitioner/Tenant on the ground that after execution of the registered Mortgage Deed as referred to in the preceding Paragraph, the relationship of Landlord-Tenant between the parties interse came to an end and the Tenant therefore, became a Mortgagee in respect of disputed premises, the possession of which therefore, could be taken by the Mortgagor/Respondent only by way of its redemption, and not through an Eviction Petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Both the Ld. Courts below however, did not find any substance in the contention raised on behalf of the Tenant and held that the Eviction Petition was maintainable, since the Landlord-Tenant relationship between the parties continued to subsist.

6. At the outset, it may be mentioned that determination of the existence of Landlord-Tenant relationship by both the Courts below essentially remains confined to a question of fact, and findings in this regard having gone concurrently in favour of Respondent/Landlord, this Court in its Revisional Jurisdiction is not expected to interfere with such findings on factual issues. It has however, been stressed on behalf of the Petitioner/Tenant that the decisions of both the Ld. Courts below in this respect are manifestly perverse, and contrary to the settled principles of law. As such, it would be appropriate to first take note of the reasonings of both the Ld. Courts below, on the basis of which, they had come to the same conclusion, that th