The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of a document is not solely determined by its title, but by the intention of the parties and the content of the document as a whole.

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J. - This matter is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to outbreak of the pandemic, COVID-19.

2. This petition has been filed for setting aside order dated 10.11.2020, Annexure P-1, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Patiala, whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed by the petitioners, for rejection of the rent petition filed by the respondent has been dismissed.

3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that respondent filed a petition under Section 20 (2) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (for short Rent Act ), seeking ejectment of the present petitioner from the premises in question on the ground of non-payment of rent.

4. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, Annexure P-3, was filed by the petitioner, seeking rejection of the said petition on the ground that petition under the Rent Act is not maintainable and the remedy, if any, available to the landlord, is under the Transfer of Property Act,1882 (for short T.P. Act ). Petitioners application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, vide impugned order dated 10.11.2020.

5. Aggrieved therefrom, present revision petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that learned Rent Controller, Patiala, has grossly erred in law and on facts in dismissing petitioners application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by holding that lease deed dated 01.11.2017 is actually a rent deed as clear cut intention of the petitioners was to execute a rent deed on the premises being let out on rent to the petitioners for running the Maruti Dealership. It is argued that in-fact a lease deed was executed between the petitioner and respondent no.1 on 01.11.2017. The said lease deed is a registered one and in this view of the matter, Section 114 of the T.P. Act, can be invoked and petition under Rent Act is not maintainable. Learned counsel submits that the learned Rent Controller has erred in referring to Clause 5 of the Lease Deed taking it to be a forfeiture clause, therefore bringing the proceedings within the ambit of the Rent Act. It is submitted that lease is for a period of 20 years with a lock-in period of five years with a clause for renewals. Clause 5 of the Lease Deed, it is submitted is in-fact not a forfeiture clause but is a general condition of the lease. Moreover, even if, there is any default in the payment of rent, the landlord is at liberty to issue a notice in this regard in terms of Section 111-G of the T.P. Act. He relies upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar Vs. Smt. Rudravva, (2001) 7 SCC 409 and this High Court in The State of Himachal Pradesh (through the Secretary for Forests Ministry of Forests) Simla Vs. Ram Piari and others, (2009) 1 RCR(Civ) 648 and of the Allahabad High Court in Chandra Shekhar Prasad Vs. Special Judge / Additional District judge, Ballia, (2000) 2 RCR(Rent) 395. It is thus prayed that the present petition be allowed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rightly dismissed, as petition under the Rent Act, is maintainable. Cause of action is clearly revealed therein. He refers to Section 4 of the Rent Act, which provides for an agreement in writing as referred to in Schedule I. It is submitted that the term lessee is interchangeable with tenant. Therefore, mere nomenclature of lease deed even when the document is clearly a rent deed cannot by itself be sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. He also relies upon decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Das Bapudas Darbar (Supra). It is thus prayed that present revision petition be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file with their assistance.

9. It is a settled position that for determining the nature of a document, nomenclature thereof may not be conclusive in itself, intention of the parties exe