IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1181 of 2009 Date of decision: 13th September, 2010 Brijinder Singh … Petitioner Versus Pritpal Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Chetan Salathia, Advocate for Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Dhani Devi wife of Jagan Nath, through her attorney Pritpal Singh and Pritpal Singh in his own rights instituted a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) against Brijinder Singh, petitioner- tenant. Pritpal Singh and Brijinder Singh are brothers. Dhani Devi, being owner and landlady of the disputed shop, had executed her attorney in favour of Pritpal Singh on 24th June, 1997. It is stated that on 12th August, 1987, Pritpal Singh had given the shop in dispute on rent to his brother Brijinder Singh. Initially, the rent was Rs.600/- per month and with effect from 11th November, 1987, the same was to be increased by 20 percent every year. The rent remained increasing from time to time. At the time of filing of the ejectment petition, the rent was Rs.1,900/- per month. A compromise was arrived at between the parties that with effect Civil Revision No.1181 of 2009 from 7th February, 1999, the rent would be increased by 5 percent every year. The arguments advanced by the parties have centered around the compromise dated 7th February, 1999, a copy whereof has been furnished by counsel for the petitioner and the true translation of which reads as under: “Today on 7th February, 1999, Pritpal Singh and Brijinder Singh, both brothers, have mutually decided regarding M/s Surya Book Depot, Shop No.31, Daddu Majra Colony, Chandigarh in the presence of Panchayat and relatives. According to the decision arrived, Pritipal Singh shall be the owner of the shop and Brijinder Singh alone shall run the shop. Pritpal Singh will be given Rs.1,900/- every month as rent. The rent shall increase at the rate of 5 percent per annum. Brijinder Singh shall become owner of the goods lying in the shop and in lieu thereof, he shall pay Rs.50,000/- to Pritpal Singh within 1 ½ years without any interest. The rent shall commence from 1st February, 1999. Both shall remain bound by this decision. The rent shall be paid before 10th of each month. Panchayati Sd/- 1. Mehma Singh Sd/- Pritpal Singh 2. Bahadur Singh Sd/- Brijinder Singh 3. Jagjit Singh 7.2.99 4. Daljit Singh” The tenant, on appearance, admitted the lease agreement dated 21st January, 1998 whereby the shop in question was let-out at the rate of Rs.600/- per month. The compromise reproduced above, had been denied by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed a civil suit against his brother Pritpal Singh, seeking permanent injunction. In the suit, a specific averment was made that the rent was Rs.600/- per month. It was stated that during the pendency of the suit, in the month of February, 1999, certain persons pressurized the petitioner to append his signatures 2 Civil Revision No.1181 of 2009 on blank papers and therefore, the compromise reproduced above was a fabricated document and had not been acted upon. The petitioner-tenant submitted before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh that the document dated 7th February, 1999, being meaningless, could not be relied upon. The petitioner-tenant had filed a counter claim to say that the rent of the disputed shop was Rs.600/- per month. Since he had tendered the rent at the rate of Rs.1,900/- from 1st January, 2000 to 30th June, 2000 he claimed refund of Rs.1,300/- per month for the said period, along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. The Rent Controller formulated following issues: 1. Whether respondent is in arrears of rent? OPP 2. Whether the petition is maintainable? OPP 3. Whether petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands? OPR 4. Whether respondent is entitled to counter claim as prayed for? 5. Relief. Respondent-landlord examined Daljit Singh as PW-1 and himself appeared as PW-2, whereas the petitioner-tenant himself appeared as RW-1 and examined Bahadur Singh as RW-2, Bansi Lal as RW-3, Amarjit Singh as RW-4 and Ujagar Singh as RW-5. The Rent Controller had examined the agreement dated 21st January, 1998, Ex.R-1 relied upon by the petitioner, according to which the rent of the disputed shop was Rs.600/- per month and the compromise Ex.P-1, relied upon by the respondent, wherein the agreement arrived at between the parties is recorded that the rent shall be Rs.1,900/- per month commencing from 1st February, 1999 and came 3 Civil Revision No.1181 of 2009 to the conclusion that the document Ex.R1 relied upon by the petitioner was to be ignored, and held as under: “11. … … … Document Ex.R1 on the other hand is a lease agreement which has been got exhibited in the testimony of respondent as RW-1. At the time of exhibition of this document an objection has been raised by the petitioners on the ground of mode of proof and the exhibition of this document. The lease agreement has been got exhibited without producing the original in the Court and in my considered opinion the same has not been proved in accordance with law. The respondent has not sought the permission of the Court to lead secondary evidence regarding the lease agreement dt. 21.1.1998 by producing a photocopy of the same on the record. The Exhibition of lease agreement dt. 21.1.1998 without production of the original of this document in my considered opinion is against the settled principle of mode of proof enumerated in Section 64 of the Evidence Act and therefore, this document shall be read as Mark-A and not as an exhibited document.” Regarding the document Ex.P1, true translation of which has been reproduced above, the Rent Controller held that the petitioner in cross-examination admitted his signatures and also the signatures of Brijinder Singh, Mehma Singh, Jagjit Singh and Daljit Singh. The Rent Controller further held that the plea raised by the tenant that his signatures on the document Ex.P1 were taken forcibly along with 8/10 other documents, which included stamp-papers and therefore, compromise dated 7th February, 1999 was a fabricated document, was held not to be tenable. Regarding the document Ex.P1, it was observed as under: “12. … … … In view of my discussion above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have successfully proved that the respondent signed Ex.P1 after fully understanding its contents. Merely because the respondent 4 Civil Revision No.1181 of 2009 felt trapped because of his financial position and had to sign agreement Ex.P.1 in order to avoid his ejectment from the disputed shop the fact that he has signed the agreement after understanding its contents cannot be disputed and once having agreed to the terms contained in Ex.P.1 respondent is estopped from challenging the said agreement. No doubt the testimony of Bahadur Singh and Amarjit Singh to the effect that respondent signed Ex.P.1 on feeling pressure and it was agreed between the parties that Ex.P.1 would not be acted upon proves that he had signed the same after being aware of its contents, therefore, contention of ld. counsel for the respondent that since the factum regarding the obtaining of signatures of the respondent on Ex.P.1 forcibly and the assurance of not using this document has not been challenged in the cross-examination, hence admitted, is untenable.” The Rent Controller further held that the petitioner was in arrears of rent, as his tender was short as due to the Clause of 5 percent increase, the rent with effect from 1st January, 2000 became Rs.1,995/- per month and therefore, the deficiency in payment was to be made good by the tenant in view of the law laid in ‘Rakesh Wadhawan v. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation’ 2002(1) RCR 514. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority also held that the compromise Ex.P1 was duly executed between the parties. The appellate authority observed as under: “21. In view of the above-discussion testimony of RW-2, no evidence is required to say that compromise Ex.P1 was duly executed between the parties in the presence of RW-2, and PW-1 and entire defence of the appellant that it is fabricated document is without any basis. As far as the story that the appellant left his house and went to Yamuna Nagar and was brought back and then the parties agreed to cancel the agreement, Ex.P1, is concerned, there is nothing on 5 Civil Revision No.1181 of 2009 record to believe this story. If it is so, learned Rent Controller, rightly relied upon the testimony of PW-1 and RW-2.” Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the compromise dated 7th February, 1999 Ex.P1 was not executed voluntarily and with free consent. It is stated that the petitioner was forced to sign the compromise, therefore, the same is hit by the provisions of sections 13 to 16 of the Indian Contract Act. Learned counsel has further stated that in case it is held that the document Ex.P1 was executed, the same cannot be read, as it requires registration. This Court, after going through the compromise dated 7th February, 1999, which has been reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment, has to determine as to whether the same is a compromise or a lease-document. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that both, the petitioner-Brijinder Singh and the respondent-Pritpal Singh are brothers. Therefore, the compromise Ex.P1, not only determines the quantum of rent but also the factum as to who shall manage and run the business of the shop in question. It was also agreed that for the goods lying in the shop, the petitioner shall pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondent within a period of 1½ years. That being so, it has been rightly held by both the Courts below that the document, being a compromise arrived at the intervention of the Panchayat, does not require registration under the Registration Act. Both the Courts below have rightly held that the signatures are admitted on the document Ex.P1. It was later-on, to wriggle out the compromise Ex.P1, that a story was concocted that the same was not voluntarily executed. Therefore, I find no fault with the reasoning adopted and no infirmity in the orders passed by both the Courts below. 6 Civil Revision No.1181 of 2009 Since this Court has agreed with the reasoning propounded by both the Courts below that the document Ex.P1 being compromise is admissible, various judgments relied upon by the petitioner to contend that a lease-deed requires registration, are not required to be dealt with. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 13, 2010 rps 7