SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1692

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Sahib Singh – Appellant
Versus
Gurjinder Kaur & Anr. – Respondents
CR No. 1963 of 2021
Decided On : 17-11-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Mr. Aman Joon, Mr. G.S. Punia Senior, Advocate, Mr. P.S. Punia

The Punjab Rent Act, 1995 provisions regarding lease registration are directory, allowing eviction petitions to proceed despite non-registration of lease deeds.

Headnote:(A) Punjab Rent Act, 1995 - Sections 4 and 20 - Eviction petition - The Rent Controller dismissed the tenant's application for dismissal of eviction petition on grounds of non-maintainability due to unregistered lease deed - The court held that the provisions of Section 4(2) are directory in nature, allowing eviction despite non-registration. (Paras 10, 12, 17)

(B) Tenant's Rights - The court clarified that non-registration does not divest the landlord's right to seek eviction under Section 20, emphasizing the purpose of the Act to resolve landlord-tenant disputes effectively. (Paras 14, 16)

Facts of the case:
The landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant for arrears of rent, citing the unregistered lease deed as a defense for non-maintainability, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the eviction petition was maintainable despite the lease not being registered, as the relevant provisions were interpreted as directory.

Issues: The main issue was whether the eviction petition was maintainable given the unregistered lease deed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that provisions regarding registration of tenancy agreements are directory, and non-registration does not invalidate the landlord's right to seek eviction under the Act.

Result: The revision petition was dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment:

  • Case Details: The case is Sahib Singh vs. Gurjinder Kaur & Anr., decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 17-11-2023 (CR No. 1963 of 2021), involving a revision petition against an order of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana (!) (!) .

  • Core Issue: The primary legal question was whether an eviction petition filed under Section 20 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, is maintainable if the underlying lease deed is unregistered, as argued by the tenant relying on Section 4 of the Act (!) (!) .

  • Statutory Provisions: The judgment analyzes Sections 2(c), 2(m), 4, and 20 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, alongside Sections 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 52 of the Easements Act to define landlord, tenant, and the requirements for eviction (!) (!) (!) .

  • Nature of Section 4(2): The Court held that the provision requiring registration of tenancy agreements under Section 4(2) of the 1995 Act is directory, not mandatory. Non-registration does not invalidate the agreement or oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller (!) (!) (!) .

  • Legislative Intent: The Court reasoned that the object of the 1995 Act is to resolve landlord-tenant disputes effectively; interpreting registration as mandatory would defeat this purpose and could act as a "double-edged sword" against tenants who might be treated as trespassers without protection (!) (!) (!) .

  • Precedents Relied Upon: The judgment cites M/s A.R. Ventures and others vs. M/s Roop Square Pvt. Ltd. (2021) to support the directory nature of Section 4(2), and references the Supreme Court's decision in Atlas Cycle Industries Limited & Others v. State of Haryana regarding the interpretation of "shall" and directory vs. mandatory provisions (!) (!) (!) .

  • Consequences of Non-Registration: While non-registration affects the admissibility of the lease deed as evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act, it does not divest the landlord of the right to seek eviction if other grounds under Section 20 are met (!) .

  • Outcome: The revision petition challenging the Rent Controller's order was dismissed, affirming that the eviction petition was maintainable despite the unregistered lease deed (!) (!) .

  • Direction to Lower Court: The High Court directed the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, to dispose of the pending eviction petition within one year of receiving the certified copy of this order (!) .


Judgment

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby, an application filed at the instance of petitioner-tenant, seeking dismissal of the eviction petition on account of its non-maintainability, stands dismissed.

2. Briefly stating, respondent No.1, claiming herself to be the landlady qua the demised premises i.e. property No.B.XVIII-4221/329ZA/1, situated in Village Jawaddi, Model Town Extension-A, Part-II Block-A, Ludhiana, filed an eviction petition invoking Section 20 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “1995 Act”), seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant as well as respondent No.2, on the ground of arrears of rent. In the eviction petition, it was pleaded that the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 were tenants under the demised premises vide lease deed dated 29.01.2014.

3. Upon notice, the petitioner-tenant appeared before the Rent Controller, Ludhiana and moved an application dated 28.03.2019 (Annexure P-3), while submitting that in view of Section 4 of the 1995 Act and the lease deed dated 29.01.2014 not being a registered document, the eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent No.1 herein, was not maintainable.

4. In response to the aforesaid application, respondent No.1-landlady appeared and filed her objections thereto.

5. The Rent Controller, Ludhiana vide order dated 19.08.2021, dismissed the application filed at the instance of petitioner-tenant.

6. Impugning the aforementioned order passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that the provision of Section 4 of the 1995 Act enjoins the party to enter into a lease agreement through a registered document only and unless the tenancy was created under a registered document, the landlord was not competent to invoke Section 20 of the 1995 Act and thus, the eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent No.1, was not maintainable. In support, he places reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in “M/s A.R. Ventures and others vs. M/s Roop Square Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2021(2) RCR (Rent) 276.

7. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel representing respondent No.1-landlady also places reliance upon the same very judgment passed in case of M/s A.R. Ventures and others (supra), while submitting that the provision of Section 4(2) of 1995 Act was held to be directory in nature and thus, the Rent Controller rightly dismissed the application filed at the instance of petitioner-tenant.

8. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as law cited at bar. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-tenant.

9. Before delving into the issue in hand, it would be necessary for this Court to refer to Section 2(c), 2(m), Section 4 as well as Section 20 of the 1995 Act, which are as under:-

“Section 2(c):- “ Landlord “ means a person who, for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of, or for the benefit of any other person or as trustee, guardian or received for any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant;

Section 2(m):- “tenant’ means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is or, but for special contract, would be payable, and include;-

(i) a sub-tenant;

(ii) any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy, but does not include-

(I) any person against whom an order or decree for eviction has been made, except where such decree or order for eviction is liable to be re-opened;

(II) any person to whom a licence as defined in Section 52 of the Indian Easments Act, 1882, has been granted;

Section 4:-Registration of tenancy agreement:-

(1) Notwithstanding anything containe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top