The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of valid and reasonable rent agreements, the timing of property transactions, and the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants under the Rent Act.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - The petitioner-tenant has filed this civil revision under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1973 (in short the, Rent Act) seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby the Appellate Authority has reversed the judgment dated 29.01.2018 passed by the Rent Controller, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari.

2. Notice of motion.

3. Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate, who is present in court accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

4. The facts, as involved in the case are that the respondents filed eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 13 of the Rent Act for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from an area measuring 533.95 square yards detailed in the petition. The ground taken in the said eviction petition was non-payment of rent for the period from 01.03.2011 to 30.04.2012. Beside that; the claim qua house tax was also made and the other ground taken for eviction of the tenant was personal necessity. The assertion of the respondents-landlords was that earlier one Bhushan Lal, Smt. Kamlesh Kumari and Smt. Renu Kumari were the owners and landlords. However, they entered into an agreement to sell dated 07.12.2010 for selling the property involved in the case to the respondents. But they did not execute the sale deed in favour of the respondents. Therefore, the suit for specific performance was filed by the respondents against the above said owners and landlord, which was compromised between the parties; and accordingly; the sale deed was executed in favour of the respondents on 21.02.2012. The other facts which have come on record are that initially the premises in question was, undisputedly, given on rent of 52,000/- per month by all the above said landlords; vide rent note dated 23.04.2010. However, after execution of the agreement to sell in favour of the respondents, two of the landlords are alleged to have entered into a tenancy modification agreement with the tenant-petitioner on 29.03.2011 qua reduction of the rent, allegedly, on the ground of loss of business of the petitioner and his consequent desire to vacate the portion of the property. Accordingly, the landlords are stated to have received the rent of 18,000/- per month after the amendment rent agreement. However, after becoming owner through the sale deed, the respondents-landlords insisted upon payment of 52,000/- per month which was denied by the petitioner-tenant. That led to filing of the eviction petition.

5. The parties led their respective evidence before the Rent Controller. After appreciating the material on record the Rent Controller has held that since none of the rent agreements was duly stamped and/or registered, therefore, the said document could not be taken into evidence. Accordingly, the eviction petition was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, respondents-landlords approached in appeal before the appellate authority. During pendency of the appeal, the Appellate Authority had directed the petitioner-tenant to make good the stamp duty. The same was duly deposited. Hence, the documents were read into evidence by the lower appellate court. Thereafter, the said appeal stands partly allowed, whereby, the grounds of personal necessity has not been found to have been made out. The tenant has been directed to pay the rent at the rate of 52,000/- per month for the period involved in the eviction petition, along with the house tax, within specified time, failing which the eviction is to follow. It is challenging the said order of the appellate authority that the present petition has been filed by the tenant.

6. Arguing the case learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier monthly rent was 52,000/-, however, subsequently keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances prevalent qua the business of the petitioner-tenant; the landlord had agreed to reduce the rent from 52,000/- to 18,000/- pe