The court affirmed the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship based on a valid rent note, rejecting the tenant's unsubstantiated claims of ownership.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral)

CM-10652-CII-2024:

This is an application under section 151 CPC to place on record documents Annexures P-1 to P-3.

Allowed.

Annexures P-1 to P-3 are taken on record.

Main case.:

Tenant is before this Court in this revision petition, inasmuch as ejectment petition filed by the landlady has been allowed by learned Rent Controller, Amloh (Fatehgarh Sahib) on 17.03.2023 and the said order has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 17.05.2024.

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that specific stand was taken by the tenant i.e. petitioner herein that demised property had been purchased by him from the owner vide an agreement to sell and that the tenant was in possession since 2008, which was evident from the various documents but the landlady claimed the tenancy from April, 2015. Learned counsel contends that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated.

3. After considering submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the orders passed by the Courts below, this Court does not find any merit in the petition.

4. It is noticed that the landlady claimed the petitioner Ritik Jindal to be tenant by virtue of a rent note dated 01.04.2015 @ 8500/- per month with the stipulation that rent was to increase @ 10% after three years. Ejectment was sought for non-payment of rent since 01.04.2018 and bona fide necessity of the landlady. The tenant i.e. petitioner herein denied the tenancy by stating that house in question was agreed to be purchased for consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- and that an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- had been paid to the petitioners (landlady) in cash as earnest money; and thereafter, 80% of the sale amount has already been paid by the tenant & his father up to 15.12.2018 through cheques and cash, though no document to this effect was reduced to writing, as parties are closely related to each other.

5. The stand taken by the tenant has been disbelieved by both the Courts below and rightly so. The rent note dated 01.04.2015 Ex.P1 has been duly proved by the testimony of PW1 Shri Hans Raj Jindal, who is an attesting witness to the same. He also proved copies of various rent receipts as Ex.P-2 to P-37. Her testimony is supported by the statement of landlady Madhu Bala.

6. To rebut the aforesaid evidence, tenant (petitioner herein) examined his father Lalit Jindal as RW-1 and he himself appeared in the witness-box as RW-2. It would be relevant to reproduce the statements made by these two witnesses, as has been referred by learned Appellate Authority in para No. 13 & 14 of the impugned order dated 17.05.2024, which are as under:

"13. To rebut the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined Lalit Jindal his father as RW-1, who deposed in his affidavit Ex.RW-1/A that Ritik Jindal is his son, who never took the house property on rent from the petitioner on 01.04.2015 at a monthly rent of Rs.8500/-. No rent deed was ever executed and the petitioner has concocted a false story. He further deposed that parties to the petition are close to each other and respondent originally belongs to Jaito, District Faridkot and in the month of September, 2008, the petitioner asked the respondent to get themselves shifted from Jaito to Mandi Gobindgarh for doing business and they offered to sell the demised premises, for which respondent agreed. He further deposed that the petitioner agreed to sell the demised premises to the respondent for a total sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.4,50,000/- was paid to petitioner as earnest money. Thereafter 80% of the sale amount was paid by the respondent and his father to the petitioner up to 15.12.2018 through cheques and cash. But no document was reduced into writing as parties were closely related to each other. After 15.12.2018, the respondent asked the petitioner to execute the sale deed with regard to demised premises and p