JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred impugning the order dated 18.07.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the plaint.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the landlord-respondent herein filed an application under Section 20(2)(a) and (q) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (as amended by the Punjab Rent Amendment Act 2014) (hereinafter referred to as 'Punjab Rent Act, 1995') for eviction of the tenant-petitioners herein from the shop measuring 80 sq. yds. bearing Municipal Corporation No.B-XX-2477 situated at Krishan Nagar, Opp. Gurudwara Mai Nand Kaur, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana. It was averred in the eviction petition that the ground floor of the premises was taken on rent by the tenant-petitioners herein on 06.04.2015 and thereafter the lease was renewed from time to time and the last rent agreement between the parties was on 19.07.2021. It was further averred that in the first week of August 2021 the first floor was also given on rent @ ?25,000/- per month and the rent of the ground floor was agreed as ?40,510/- per month. The rent for both the floors was ?65,510/- per month. The tenant-petitioners herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint stating therein that the tenancy of the ground floor was a written tenancy and qua the first floor there was an oral tenancy and as per Sections 4(i) and (ii) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, the agreement has to be in writing and also has to be registered. It is further the case that in the present case there was no written agreement regarding the tenancy of the first floor, hence, since the eviction petition which has been filed jointly for the ground floor and the first floor, is liable to be rejected. Reply was filed to the said application and vide the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed by the tenant-petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioners would contend that there can be no recognizable tenancy under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 which specifically requires a written agreement between the parties. In support her arguments, she has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s A.R. Ventures & Ors. Vs. M/s Roop Square Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [2021 (2) RCR (Rent) 276]. It is further the contention that as per the judgment in M/s A.R. Ventures (supra), a person who is in possession of a property as a tenant without there being any written tenancy under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 would be considered as a trespasser and, therefore, since the tenant-petitioners had been held to be a trespasser by the Rent Controller qua the first floor, the present eviction petition ought to have been rejected on an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC as the petition itself would not be maintainable. The Rent Controller cannot adjudicate the dispute where the tenant-petitioners have already been held to be a trespasser. Since the tenant-petitioners have been held to be as a trespasser, a civil suit for possession would have to be filed.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlord-respondent would contend that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be allowed even if there is no written agreement qua the first floor in view of the bar in Section 4 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 since there can be no partial rejection of a plaint. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors. [2025 (4) SCC 38] to buttress his argument that there can be no partial rejection of the plaint.

5. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioners in rejoinder would contend that the said judgment in Central Bank of India (supra) would h