Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Behal vs Kanwaljit Kaur And Others on 23 January, 2012
Equivalent citations: AIR 2012 (NOC) 417 (P. & H.)
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CR-2742-1997 [1]
CR-2743-1997
CR-2744-1997
::::::::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CR-2742-1997
Date of decision:23.01.2012
Pardeep Behal ...Petitioner
Versus
Kanwaljit Kaur and others ...Respondents
(2) CR-2743-1997
Date of decision:23.01.2012
Pardeep Behal ...Petitioner
Versus
Kanwaljit Kaur and others ...Respondents
(3) CR-2744-1997
Date of decision:23.01.2012
Pardeep Behal ...Petitioner
Versus
Kanwaljit Kaur and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
None for the respondents.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This order shall dispose of three revision petitions bearing CR-2742-1997, CR-2743-1997 & CR-2744-1997 all titled as `Pardeep Behal Vs. Kanwaljit Kaur and others'.
The petitioner is the tenant against whom the landlord has filed three separate eviction petitions on the ground of arrears of rent. In the first petition, the arrears of rent was claimed w.e.f. 01.07.1990; in the second petition, w.e.f. 01.02.1991 and in the third petition, from 01.09.1992. The tenant had alleged that he was inducted as a tenant in the year 1988 at the monthly rent of `5,000/-, whereas the landlords had claimed that the rent was @ `9,000/- per month. In order CR-2742-1997 [2] CR-2743-1997 CR-2744-1997 ::::::::
to escape from his eviction, the tenant had tendered/deposited the rent @ `9,000/- per month in all the three petitions and had also filed counter- claims, but the learned Rent Controller, vide its order dated 18.02.1995, dismissed the eviction petitions as well as the counter-claims, which led to the filing of three rent appeals by the tenant and cross-appeals by the landlords. The learned Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 25.01.1997, dismissed all the cross-appeals filed by the landlords and two appeals filed by the tenant but allowed the Rent Appeal No.60 of 1995 to the extent of recovery of excess rent @ `4,000/- per month pertaining to the month of July and August, 1990, with proportionate costs and interest @ 6% per annum.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the orders of the Courts below in respect of the assessment of the rent @ `9,000/- per month, has submitted that till August, 1990, the rent was @ `5,000/- per month, which is alleged to have been increased @ `9,000/- per month by virtue of document Ex.P1 dated 01.09.1990. He has submitted that the document Ex.P1 cannot be taken into consideration because it is only signed by the tenants/Pardeep Behal and Ajay Partap Singh and not by the landlord or the witnesses. He has submitted that the rent deed/lease deed has to be essentially signed by both the parties and attested by the witnesses and if it is only signed by one of the parties, namely, the lessee, then it is a rent note. He further submitted that if the unilateral document/rent note is to be looked into as a lease deed, then it requires registration. In this regard, he has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Dhana Bai v. Smt. Kewara Bai and others, 1972 R.C.R. 236 and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Khanna of Ludhiana v. Rajiv Garg, 1989 HRR 153.
No-one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. It is an admitted fact that the tenant has already vacated the demised premises but he is claiming the refund of the amount of `4,000/- per month which is alleged to have been paid in excess by him before the learned Rent Controller in order to avoid his eviction from the demised premises at that time. He further submitted that the rent upto the month of August, 1990 was admittedly @ `5,000/- per month which CR-2742-1997 [3] CR-2743-1997 CR-2744-1997 ::::::::
is alleged to have been increased from 01.09.1990 in terms of Ex.P1, which is allegedly a rent note but the said document was neither signed by both the parties, i.e. the landlord, the tenant and his witnesses, nor it is registered though executed for a period of 3 years from 01.09.1990 to 31.08.1993. He further submitted that the said document was only a proposal as has been mentioned in the document Mark `A' which was executed on 17.09.1990 but that document is again not exhibited on record and is not registered though it has been signed by both the landlord and the tenant and attested by the witnesses. In Smt. Dhana Bai's case (supra), it was held that the rent note for a year or exceeding a year or reserving yearly rent requires registration under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 [for short "Registration Act"] and is not admissible in evidence, if it is not registered, in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act. Similarly, in Ram Kumar Khanna of Ludhiana's case (supra), it was held that if the document is signed by both the parties and is attested by the witnesses, then the said document cannot be termed as a 'rent note' but falls within the purview of Section 107 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and is, thus, a lease deed and if it is not registered, the same is not admissible in evidence. In the present case, the document Ex.P1, which is basically relied upon by the learned Courts below, cannot be taken into consideration as a lease deed because it is neither singed by both the parties nor is registered and even if it is a rent note which is exceeding the period of one year, it cannot be taken into consideration for want of registration.
In view of the above discussion, I find merit in the present revision petitions and thus all the three revision petitions are hereby allowed and the petitioner-tenant is held entitled to the refund of excess rent @ `4,000/- per month with 6% interest per annum from the date it was deposited by him before the learned Rent Controller till its realization.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases.
January 23, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE