The main legal point established is the intention of the parties in entering into a rent agreement and the non-existence of a landlord-tenant relationship.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) - The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (landlord) against the judgment and order dated 06.01.2020, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Panchkula in Rent Petition No. 352 of 2013, vide which it allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent (tenants), against the judgment dated 29.01.2015, passed by Rent Controller, in a petition u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity 'the Act'), wherein, they were ordered to be ejected from the demised premises i.e. Shop No. 29, situated in abadi of village Abhaypur, Industrial Area Phase-I, Panchkula.

2. The pleaded case of the petitioner in the rent petition filed before the Rent Controller, Panchkula, may be noticed thus:-

That he was owner of the demised premises, which was purchased by him in the year 1998. Since the petitioner wanted to sell the demised premises and the respondents were interested in purchasing the same, an agreement to sell dated 09.01.2008 was executed between him and the father of the respondent No.1, for a total consideration of Rs.13,50,000/-, out of which a total sum of Rs.10,25,000/- was received by him as part payment. A sum of Rs.3,25,000/-, however, still remained outstanding. On the request of the father of respondent No.1, the date of execution of the sale-deed was repeatedly extended. Since they failed to execute the sale-deed, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 26.03.2011, upon the respondent to execute the sale-deed after making payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,25,000/-. The respondent No.1 and his father were also informed that in case they failed to do so, the entire sale consideration received by the petitioner shall stand forfeited and ejectment proceedings from the demised premises would be initiated against them by the petitioner. It was also alleged that respondent had taken the ground floor of the demised premises on rent @ Rs.1000/- p.m. pursuant to a rent agreement executed between the parties on 09.04.2008. Thereafter, the first and second floors of the demised premises were also let out to the respondent No.1 in June, 2008, on his request. The rent of the triple storey Shop i.e. the demised premises was fixed at Rs.3000/- p.m.. The respondent was running a chemist shop in the name and style of M/s Shivam Medicos in the demised premises. The petitioner sought ejectment of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity by alleging that the respondent was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.07.2008 to 30.04.2011 @ Rs.3000/- p.m. and hence, he was liable to pay arrears in the sum of Rs.1,02,000/-. With regard to personal necessity, the petitioner sought ejectment of respondent on the ground that since the former was running an educational institute, he required the demised premises, as it was more suited in comparison to the premises, where he was presently running his institute.

3. The respondent No.1 while filing his written statement controverted the averments made by the petitioner by submitting that he had not approached the Court with clean hands and had in fact, concealed true and material facts. It was submitted that an agreement to sell dated 09.01.2008 was executed between the parties with regard to the property in question for a total consideration of Rs.13,50,000/-. Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner as earnest money through cheque dated 07.01.2008. It was agreed between the parties that the last date for execution and registration of the sale-deed would be 22.02.2008. However, on 21.02.2008, the petitioner approached the respondent with a request to pay him Rs.5,75,000/- and then with the mutual consent of both the parties, the date of execution and registration of the sale-deed was extended to 07.03.2008. On 16.04.2008, the last date for execution and registration of the sale-deed was again extended to 15.05.2008. Even though, the respondent No.1 and his father were ready and