Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 1589
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SAHIB SINGH – Appellant
Versus
GURJINDER KAUR AND ANR – Respondent
CR 1963 2021
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- The case involves a revision petition filed by Sahib Singh (Petitioner) challenging an order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, which dismissed his application seeking dismissal of an eviction petition on grounds of non-maintainability (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The eviction petition was filed by Gurjinder Kaur (Respondent No.1), the landlady, under Section 20 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, citing arrears of rent as the ground for eviction (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The lease deed between the parties was dated 29.01.2014 and was not a registered document (!) (!) (!) .
- The Petitioner argued that Section 4 of the 1995 Act mandates a registered document for a valid tenancy; therefore, without registration, the eviction petition was not maintainable (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The Petitioner relied on the judgment in M/s A.R. Ventures and others vs. M/s Roop Square Pvt. Ltd. to support the argument that the eviction petition was non-maintainable due to non-registration (!) (!) (!) .
- The Respondent also relied on the A.R. Ventures judgment but argued that Section 4(2) of the 1995 Act is directory in nature, not mandatory, and thus the eviction petition was correctly dismissed by the Rent Controller (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The Court examined Sections 2(c), 2(m), Section 4, and Section 20 of the 1995 Act to determine the validity of the tenancy and the maintainability of the eviction petition (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The Court held that the right of a landlord to seek eviction under Section 20 of the 1995 Act has never been made subject to the registration of the lease deed under Section 4 of the same Act (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The Court observed that Section 4(2) of the 1995 Act is directory in nature because no specific consequences are prescribed for non-compliance, and strict enforcement would defeat the legislative object of resolving disputes between landlords and tenants (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Atlas Cycle Industries Limited & Others v. State of Haryana to support the interpretation that provisions using "shall" can be directory if non-compliance does not render the agreement void or cause serious public inconvenience (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The Court noted that if Section 4(2) were held mandatory, it could work against tenants who might be deemed trespassers if they occupy premises without a registered lease, thereby undermining the protective intent of the 1995 Act (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The Court clarified that non-registration of the lease deed under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, only affects its admissibility as evidence and does not invalidate the tenancy or oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- Consequently, the Court found no merit in the revision petition and dismissed it, upholding the maintainability of the eviction petition despite the non-registration of the lease deed (!) (!) .
- The Court directed the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, to dispose of the eviction petition (filed in 2018) within one year from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order (!) (!) (!) (!) .
2023:PHHC: 146613
CR-1963-2021
--1--
114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-1963-2021
Decided on:-17.11.2023
Sahib Singh
....Petitioner
vs.
Gurjinder Kaur and another
....Respondents.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present:
Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate and
Mr. Aman Joon, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Punia, Senior Advocate with
Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)
1.
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
SONIKA
2023.11.29 17:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
2023:PHHC: 146613
CR-1963-2021
--2--
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.
In response to the aforesaid application, respondent No.1-
landlady appeared and filed her objections thereto.
4.
The Rent Controller, Ludhiana vide order dated
19.08.2021, dismissed the application filed at the instance of
petitioner-tenant.
5.
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,
SONIKA
2023.11.29 17:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
2023:PHHC: 146613
CR-1963-2021
--3--
2021(2) RCR (Rent) 276.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
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,
