The Landlord is not required to show any personal necessity. Even in seeking ejectment before the expiry of the tenure, the Act does not contemplate the bonafide requirement of the Landlord: Punjab and Haryana High Court

 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH206 =================IN VIRTUAL COURT=================1. CR No. 72619with connected matters 2 Rajbir Sehrawat J.Ghumar Mandi Mahal Baghat Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The petitioner had taken the topfloor and the 4th floor of the premises on rent from the respondent landlord videtwo separate written agreements dated 1.12.2016. The rent for the top floorwas agreed at the rate of Rs. One lakh per month along with 5% increase perannum. The rent for the 4th floor was agreed to be Rs. 4 lakhs per month with asimilar increase of 5% per annum. The duration of the said tenancy was fixedto be nine years. As per the allegations the petitioner paid the rent for 5months with intermittent defaults in case of premises on top floor andthereafter defaulted in payments. Almost similar has been the position qua the4th floor. The respondent landlord alleges that he had verbally requested thepetitioner for making the payment of defaulted amount. After request somepayments were made. However again the default was started and is stillcontinuing. As a result no rent is being paid to the respondent landlord.Although the petitioner as a tenant is enjoying the property however he hasnot been paying even the electricity charges or any other taxes and chargesleviable by the Government. On the contrary the respondent landlord is being From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 3 forced to pay the GST leviable on the rent electricity charges and other chargesleviable by the Government. As a result the respondent landlord had filed twoseparate petitions under the Punjab Rent Act 1995forrecovery of possession from the petitioner for non payment of rent as well as claiming his personal requirement so as to expand his business. Thepetitioner tenant appeared before the Rent Authority and filed the writtenstatement. However the petitioner also filed application stating the same to beunder Section 20of the Act in which it was prayed that since therespondent landlord had not given him the notice in the prescribed form asrequired by Section 20of the Act therefore the eviction petitions itselfwere not maintainable and therefore deserved to be rejected. But the RentAuthority dismissed the same in both the petitions vide order dated 26.10.2018.However since the petitioner tenant had also filed the writtenstatements therefore taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties theRent Authority framed the issues for its determination vide order dated14.3.2019. Aggrieved against the above said two orders dismissing hisapplications for rejection of the eviction petitions passed by the RentAuthority the petitioner tenant filed two appeals before the AppellateAuthority questioning the order passed by the Rent Authority. Similarly aggrieved against not ordering immediate eviction of the tenant and framing ofissues in both the petitions the respondent landlord also preferred two appealsbefore the Rent Authority. Therefore the Appellate Authority considered fourappeals two filed by the petitioner tenant and two filed by the respondent landlord. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 4 and held that the application for rejection of the eviction petitions had rightlybeen dismissed by the Rent Authority. In the appeal filed by therespondent landlord the Appellate Authority held that since the rent has notbeen paid by the tenant and the default continued even during the pendency ofthe proceedings before the Rent Authority therefore the tenant was liable to beevicted for non payment of rent. Hence the appeals filed by the landlord wereallowed. However the matter was remanded to the Rent Authority to grant anopportunity to the petitioner tenant to pay the up to date rent to the respondent land lord failing which the Rent Authority was directed to pass the evictionorder without carrying out any further proceedings. It is against these fourorders passed in two different eviction petitions that the present four petitionshave been filed by the petitioner tenant.It deserves mentioned here that it is not even disputed that thepetitioner has not paid any rent after filing of the eviction petition before theRent Authority. Before the Appellate Authority also no rent was paid ordeposited by the petitioner. Before this Court also the matter has been pendingfor about two years but no rent has been paid or deposited by the petitioner.Hence during the entire period of litigation the petitioner has been occupyingthe premises without payment of any rent. Before proceeding further with thearguments this Court had asked the petitioner whether he was ready to pay therent and its arrears to retain the premises. The counsel for the petitioner hadsought time to get instructions in this regard. However on the next date ofhearing the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has the instructions tosay that the petitioner is not in position to pay any rent because the petitionerhas gone bankrupt. These facts and the assertions by the petitioner itself From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 5 disentitle him to continue in possession of the premises in question for even asingle minute and the petitioner is liable to be evicted from the premises withimmediate effect. However since the petitioner has raised certain legalquestions therefore it is appropriate that this Court considers the same andthen decide the matter.Arguing the case counsel for the petitioner tenant has submittedthat both the Courts below have gone wrong in law in dismissing hisapplication for rejection of the eviction petition filed by the landlord as notmaintainable as per the mandate of Section 20of the Act. It is submitted bythe counsel that the Act prescribes a mandatory condition of giving notice bythe landlord to the tenant in the prescribed format as given in schedule to theAct. If the same is not complied with then as per sub sectionof Section 20of the Act the Rent Authority was restrained from passing any order ofrecovery or decree for possession of the demised premises. Hence thecondition of the issuance of notice is mandatory for maintaining the evictionpetition. Therefore this was a duty cast upon the respondent landlord tocomply with this provision. Counsel has further submitted that the agreementclaimed by the respondent landlord is in writing therefore the same wasrequired to be registered as per Section 4 of the Act. Since the agreement hasnot been registered therefore the same is not admissible in evidence as perSection 49 of the Registration Act 1860. Since Section 4 of the Act starts withnon obstante clause therefore neither such an agreement has any legal valuenor can the same be led in evidence by the respondent landlord. Counsel hasfurther submitted that during pendency of the petition the landlord had dis continued the facilities available to the petitioner tenant which is against the From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 6 mandate of Section 19 of the Act which prescribes that even if there is adefault on the part of the tenant landlord could not have discontinued ordisconnected the amenities available to the tenant. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the AppellateAuthority mainly has gone by the fact that the petitioner has admitted thepleadings raised by the respondent landlord in the eviction petition. However this conclusion of the Court below is wrong. The petitioner denies havingadmitted any pleadings raised by the respondent landlord in the evictionpetition. Even if the pleadings are taken as admitted the Rent Authority wouldstill have to assess the pleadings of the parties for arriving at a final decision.Hence the issues were rightly framed by the Rent Authority. The AppellateAuthority has wrongly set aside the order of framing of issues. Still further theCourt below has wrongly assumed the service of notice upon the petitioner byvirtue of the fact that the petitioner continued the default in payment of the renteven after filing of the petition. In such a scenario Section 25 of the Act shallcome into play. The Court below could have allowed the arrears of rent withstatutory interest even for the period during pendency of the petition.However non payment of rent during pendency of the eviction petition orduring the pendency of the appeal is not a ground sufficient to order evictionof a tenant. Hence the order passed by the Courts below are wrong. On the other hand counsel for the respondent landlord hasreferred to the pleadings of the parties. He has submitted that after payment ofrent for some months the petitioner defaulted in its payment. In the firstinstance oral notice was given to the petitioner to pay the rent. Thereafter hepaid the rent for some months but again defaulted in payment. Therefore the From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 7 petitioner forfeits his rights to get any notice for the second time as per theproviso contained in Section 20of the Act. Counsel has further submittedthat the Court below has rightly held that the non payment of rent during thependency of the petition itself is a sufficient notice to the tenant. Counsel hasrelied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of V. Dhanapal Chettier v. Yasodai Ammal 1979RCR352 . In thepresent case since the petitioner did not make the payment of rent during thependency of the rent petition or during pendency of appeal therefore he hasrightly been ordered to be evicted. Qua framing of the issues counsel for therespondent has submitted that the respondent landlord had made specificpleadings in the rent petition qua the date of agreement duration of theagreement rate of rent increase in rent and qua the other contents of thiswritten agreement between the parties. As per Order 8 Rules 3 and 4 CPC thepetitioner tenant was required to reply these assertions specifically. However no specific reply was given by the petitioner tenant. Only a vague kind ofdenial was inserted in the written statement. Hence any vague denial has to betaken as an admission on the part of the petitioner. Counsel has relied upon thejudgment rendered in the case of Sat Paul Singh v. Hukam Chand 1991 PLJ392 to support his contention. On the issue of non registration of theagreements in question counsel has submitted that the Court below has rightlyheld the same to be only directory in nature. Counsel has relied upon thejudgment rendered in the case of Utsav Dey v. Sushil Kumar Bhadraja 2019(1) RCR188 . Still further counsel has relied upon a judgmentrendered in the case of Gurbax Singh v. Sardara Singh 1994PLR 396(Punjab & Haryana) to buttress his arguments that in case the lease deed is From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 8 admitted then eviction can be effected even if the said lease deed is notregistered. Relying upon the provisions of Section 25 of the Act the counselhas contended that this provision enshrines upon the tenant a duty to pay therent as per the agreement latest by 15th day of the month failing which he isliable to pay interest @ 15% for the period of delay. The same section requiresthat if the tenant fails to pay the rent during pendency of the petition then hisdefence has to be struck off and the case has to be decided on the basis ofpleadings of the landlord alone. Therefore the Court below has not committedany illegality or irregularity in setting aside the order of framing of issues bythe Rent Authority. The payment of arrears of rent along with 15% interest hasalso been rightly ordered by the Appellate Authority in terms of provisionscontained in Section 38 sub sectionof the Act. Accordingly it is prayedby counsel for the respondent landlord that the present petitions be dismissedwith heavy and exemplary costs being a blatant misuse of the process of theCourt.Having heard counsel for the parties this Court finds that the mainissues involved and argued in the present case are of theAct is at all maintainable ii) Whether non issuance of a notice upon the tenant in theprescribed format as required by Section 20(a) of the Actrenders the petition as not maintainable iii) Whether not giving a notice in the prescribed format before From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 9 filing of the eviction petition on the ground of non payment ofrent would defeat the right of the landlord to seek recovery ofpossession even if there is default in payment of rent duringpendency of the petition iv) Whether registration of the rent agreement lease deed underthe Act is mandatory v) What is the effect of non registration of rent agreement underthe Punjab Rent Act To appreciate the above said points it is appropriate to have areference to the provisions of the Act which are relevant for decision of theissues involved in the case Section 2. Definitions to"Landlord" means a person who for the time being is receiving or isentitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own accountor on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person oras a trustee guardian or receiver for any other person or who would soreceive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were letto a tenant:(d) to“Premises” means any building or part of a building which is or isintended to be let separately for use a residence or for nonresidential useor for any other purpose and includes the garden ground and out houses if any appertaining to suchbuilding or part of building but does not include the upper side ofroofany fittings to such building or part of the building for themore beneficial enjoyment thereof.(h) to“tenant’ means any person by whom or on whose account or behalfthe rent of any premises is or but for special contract would be payable and include 1 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 10a sub tenantany person continuing in possession after the termination ofhis tenancy but does not includeAny person against whom an order or decree foreviction has been made except where such decree or orderfor eviction is liable to be re openedany person to whom a licence as defined in section 52of the Indian Easments Act 1882 has been granted XXXXXXXXXXXXSection 4. Registration of tenancy agreement Notwithstandinganything contained in Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 no person shall after the commencement of this Act let or take on rentany premises except by an agreement in writing.(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act 1908(108) every agreement referred to in sub sectionshall be inthe Form specified in Schedule I appended to this Act and shall beregistered under and in accordance with the provisions of theRegistration Act 1908 by the authority specified thereunder on paymentof registration fee of rupees one thousand.XXXXXXXXXXXXBefore amendment of the Act in the year 2014 the sub sectionevery agreement referred to in sub section(1) shall be in the Form specified in Schedule I to this Act andshall be registered with the Rent Authority concerned on paymentof registration fee of rupees one thousand.”XXXXXXXXXXXXSection 20. Protection of tenants against eviction The Rent Authority may on an application made to it in the Formspecified in Schedule XII to this Act make an order for the recovery of 1 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 11 possession of any premises on one more of the following grounds only namely:that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of thearrears of the rent and other charges payable for three or moreconsecutive months legally recoverable from him within twomonths of the date on which a notice in the From specified inSchedule VII to this Act of demand for the arrears of such rentand other charges payable and interest at the rate of fifteenpercent for the period of default has been served on him by thelandlord in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer ofProperty Act 1882:Provided that a tenant shall not be entitled to the benefit ofservice of notice by the landlord under this clause where havingobtained such benefit once in respect of any premises he againmake a default in the payment of rent and other charges payablein respect of those premisestothat the tenant after having agreed with or having informedthe landlord in writing the date to vacate the premises does not doso on or after the date so agreed or informed.(q) that the premises let for residential or non residential purposeare required whether in the same form or after re construction orre building by the landlord for occupation for residential or non residential purpose for himself or for any member of his family ifhe is the owner thereof or for any person for who benefit thepremises are held and that the landlord or such person has noother reasonably suitable accommodation Provided that where the landlord has acquired thepremises by transfer no application for the recovery of possessionof such premises shall lie under this clause unless a period ofthree years elapsed from the date of the acquisition :Provided further that where an order for the recovery ofpossession of any premises is made on the ground specified inthis clause the landlord shall be entitled to obtain possessionthereof on the expiration of a period of three months from thedate of passing of eviction order. 1 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 12 Explanation. 1. For the purposes of this clause where thelandlord in his application supported by an affidavit submits thatthe premises are required by him for occupation for himself or forany member of his family dependent on him the Rent Authorityshall presume that the premises are so required. |Explanation. II. For the purposes of this clause of section 21 section 22 section 23 or section 24 an occupation by thelandlord of any part of a building of which any premises let outby him forms a part shall not disentitle him to recover thepossession of such premises.Explanation. III. For the purposes of this clause “owner of thepremises” includes a person who has been allotted such premisesby the Punjab Housing Development Board or any other localauthority by way of an agreement of hire purchase lease or sub lease even before the full ownership rights accrue to such hire purchaser lessee or sub lessee as the case may be.(3) In any proceeding for eviction under clause(e)(g) orofsub sectionof this section or section 21 or section 22 or section 23 orsection 24 the Rent Authority may allow eviction from only a part of thepremises if the landlord is agreeable to the same.Provided that in case of such part eviction the rent and other chargespayable by the tenant shall be decreased in proportion to the partvacated.(4) No order for the recovery of possession in any proceedings undersub sectionshall be binding on any sub tenant referred to in section27 who has given notice of his sub tenancy to the landlord under theprovisions of that section unless the sub tenant is made a party to theproceedings and the order for eviction is made binding on him.XXXXXXXXXXXXSection 25. Payment of rent during eviction proceedings Duringthe proceedings for recovery of possession under section 20 a tenantshall ensure timely payment of rent and other charges at the rate atwhich these were being paid immediately before the commencement ofthe proceeding.(2) toIf a tenant fails to make payment or deposit as required by this 1 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 13 section the Rent Authority may order the defence against eviction to bestruck out and proceed with the hearing of the application.XXXXXXXXXXXXSection 29. Recovery of possession for occupation and re entry Where a landlord recovers possession of any premises from thetenant in pursuance of an order made under clauseof sub sectionof section 20 for occupation after reconstruction orrebuilding the period of three years shall be reckoned from the date ofcompletion of re construction or re building as the case may be.XXXXXXXXXXXXSection 38. Procedure to be followed by Rent Authority Noorder which prejudicially affects any person shall be made by the RentAuthority under this Act without giving him a reasonable opportunity ofshowing cause against the order proposed to be made and until hisobjections if any and any evidence he may produce in support of thesame have been considered by the Rent Authority.(2) Subject to any rule made under this Act and other provisions of thisAct the Rent Authority shall while holding an enquiry in any proceedingbefore him follow as far as may be the practice and procedure of a courtof small causes including the recording of evidence.(3) The Rent Authority shall not ordinarily allow more than threeadjournments at the request of a party throughout the proceedings and incase he decides to do so he shall inform the chairman the reasonstherefore and order to pay the other party the reasonable cost.(4) The Rent Authority shall issue summons in relation to everyapplication under this Act in the form specified in Schedule III to thisAct. 1 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 14The Rent Authority shall in addition to and simultaneously with theissue of summons for service on the opposite party also direct thesummons to be served by registered post acknowledgment due undercertificate of posting addressed to the opposite party or his agentauthorised to accept the service at the place where the opposite party orhis agent actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business orpersonally works for gain and shall also direct affixing of the same onthe door of the premises in dispute and get a munadi in this behalf. Thisshall constitute valid service of summons.(6)An application under section 19 for cutting off essential service shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedurespecified in this sub section.(b) The Rent Authority shall commence the hearing of theapplication within seven days of the filing thereof and shalldispose of the same within thirty days of starting of such hearing failing such commencement of hearing of application within suchtime the Rent Authority shall inform the Chairman of theTribunal the reasons therefor.(7)(a) Every application by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clauseor clauseof sub sectionof section 20 orunder section 21 or under section 22 or under section 23 orunder section 24 or under section 31 shall be dealt with inaccordance with the procedure specified in this sub section.(b) The tenant on whom the summons is duly served inaccordance with sub sectionin the Form specified in scheduleIII to this act shall not contest the prayer for eviction from thepremises unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on whichhe seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leavefrom the Rent Authority as hereinafter provided and in default ofhis appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtainingsuch leave the statement made by the landlord in the applicationfor eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and theapplicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the groundaforesaid.(c) The Rent Authority shall give to the tenant leave to contest the 1 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 15 application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such factsas would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for therecovery of possession of the premises.(d) Where leave is granted to the tenant to contest the application the Rent Authority shall ordinarily commence the hearing of theapplication within seven days of the grant of such leave and shallprovide day to day hearing and shall dispose of the applicationwithin thirty days of starting of such hearing failing suchcommencement of hearing or disposal of application within suchtime the Rent Authority shall inform the Chairman of theTribunal the reasons therefor.(e) Where the leave to contest under clauseis denied to thetenant he may file an application for review before the RentAuthority within ten days of such denial and the Rent Authorityshall endeavour to dispose of such application within seven daysof its filing.(8) Every application made to the Rent Authority shall be heard asexpeditiously as possible and subject to the provisions of sub sectionendeavour shall be made to conclude the hearing and to disposeof the application within six months of its being filed.(9) In all proceedings before him the Rent Authority shall consider thequestion of costs and award such costs to or against any party as theRent Authority considers reasonable.(10) When the ejectment decree is passed under this Act the RentAuthority shall in addition pass order for recovery of arrears of rent andother charges alongwith interest at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum recoverable as arrears of Land Revenue.XXXXXXXXXXXXSection 38(A). Application to Rent Authority Every application tothe Rent Authority shall be in such Form as is provided in the relevantSchedule to this Act alongwith relevant documents and other requiredevidence Fees for various applications and processes shall be the sameas applicable to a Rent Controller under the provisions of the Court FeesAct 1870 as amended by the State of Punjab.XXXXXXXXXXXXRegistration Act 1908. 1 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 16 Section 49. Effect of non registration of documents required to beregistered. — No document required by section 17 or by any provisionof the Transfer of Property Act 1882to be registered shall—(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein or(b) confer any power to adopt or(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting suchproperty or conferring such power unless it has been registered: Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable propertyand required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act 1882to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in asuit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act 1877or as evidence of any collateral transaction not requiredto be effected by registered instrument.” After considering the provisions of the Act and the material onrecord the findings of the Court on the issues culled out above are as under : Issue No.(b) is to beentertained by the Rent Authority. Needless to say that the Rent Authority hasbeen created as a statutory authority whose powers are circumscribed by theprovisions of the Act and not as a Court. The application for rejection of aneviction petition for want of service of notice upon a tenant as was moved bythe petitioner in the present case is not maintainable in itself under theprovisions of the Punjab Rent Act. Issue No.with connected matters 17 mentioned in sub sectionwhich has been prohibited by the Act if the noticein specific format as in Schedule VII is not given by the landlord to the tenant.The question of passing of order or decree for recovery of possession of apremises comes only at the stage of disposal of the petition. Therefore prohibition created by non obstante clause of sub sectionof Section 20cannot be invoked at the stage of filing of the petition. Hence merely becauseof want of notice as contemplated by sub sectionof Section 20 of the Act the petition filed by the landlord for recovery of possession as such cannot berejected as non maintainable. This is made more clear by the fact that the nonpayment of rent is not the only ground for seeking recovery of possession rather there are other grounds as well for which a landlord can seek recoveryof possession under Section 20of the Act without there being anyrequirement of notice being served upon the tenant in a specified format.Therefore the consequences of not giving notice to the tenant by the landlordin the format specified in VII Schedule may arise at a later stage which may beconsidered by the Rent Authority Court as per prevalent legal situation however mere non service of any such notice in itself is not a ground forrejection of the eviction petition filed by the landlord.Therefore as a cumulative effect of the decision on issuesand(ii) above this Court holds that no application at the instance of a tenant forrejection of an eviction petition on the ground of non service of noticespecified in the VII schedule is maintainable. The Rent Authority cannot evenentertain any such application as such. Still further the eviction petitioncannot be rejected and dismissed as non maintainable only because of the factthat the landlord had not given any notice before filing the same on account of 1 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 18 non payment of rent. Therefore the arguments of counsel for the petitioneragainst dismissal of his applications by the Courts below qua rejection of theeviction petition is rejected. The orders passed by the Courts below in thisregard are upheld.Issue No.RCR352 wherein itwas held as under“If the State Rent Act requires the giving of a particular type of notice inorder to get a particular kind of relief such a notice will have to begiven. Or it may be that a landlord will be well advised by way ofabundant precaution and in order to lend additional support to this case to give a notice to his tenant intimating that he intended to file a suitagainst him for his eviction on the ground mentioned in the notice. Butthat is not to say that such a notice is compulsory or obligatory or that itmust fulfill all the technical requirements of Section 106 of the Transferof Property Act. Once the liability to be evicted is incurred by thetenant he cannot turn round and say that the contractual lease has notbeen determined. The action of the landlord in instituting a suit foreviction on the ground mentioned in any State Rent Act will betantamount to an expression of his intention that he does not want thetenant to continue as his lessee and the jural relationship of lessor andlessee will come to an end on the passing of an order or a decree foreviction.”Therefore it is clear that the Hon ble Supreme Court hascategorically opined that even if the prescribed notice is not given by thelandlord that would not in all situations defeat his petition. If in an evictionpetition filed on the ground of non payment of rent the tenant continues todefault in payment of rent even during the Court proceedings then the filing of 1 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 19 petition itself shall be deemed to be a valid notice to the tenant. By filing theeviction petition the landlord expresses his intention to evict the tenant by allmeans on the grounds mentioned therein. Therefore it is clear that therequirement of giving notice to the tenant in the prescribed form as prescribedunder sub sectionof Section 20 of the Act is only to enable the landlord toexpress his intention to evict the tenant in clear cut terms by specifying thegrounds mentioned in the notice. Consequent purpose of this provision is thatthe tenant understands in clear terms that the amount specified in the notice isoutstanding against him and that if he does not pay the same within statutoryprescribed time then he is liable to face the statutory consequences asprescribed under the Act. Hence the provision of giving notice by the landlordto the tenant is only in the nature of abundant caution to enable parties to makethemselves clear qua the issue of non payment of rent. Therefore thisprovision in itself is not a ground to defeat the eviction petition filed by thelandlord against her his tenant.Issue No.of Section 4 createsa prohibition both against a tenant as well as against the landlord qua takingor giving a property on rent except by a written agreement. This prohibitionstarts with a non obstante clause against the provision of the Transfer ofProperty Act. Since there is a non obstante clause even against the transfer ofProperty Act therefore if a person enters into a property as a tenant without awritten agreement to that effect then such a person does not get any legal rightqua such property. In absence of written agreement landlord shall not be astatutory landlord under the Act and the tenant shall not be a statutory tenant. 2 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 20 The status of such a person shall not be even of permissive possession. Such aperson shall not be more than a rank trespasser. He shall not be entitled to anykind of protection or defence against the landlord. However the landlord shallstill be having full ownership rights over such property including his right toun interrupted possession to the property being a lawful owner. Hence thelandlord shall be fully entitled to ask such a person to vacate the property andif not so vacated to throw out such a person without recourse to any legalprocess. Even if the landlord takes recourse to a legal process then the Courtshall also be bound to order restoration of possession without entertaining anydefence on the part of any such alleged tenant. Hence it is only with a writtenagreement the tenant becomes a statutory tenant under the present Act and thelandlord becomes a statutory landlord under the Act and both are to begoverned by the provisions of the Act making them entitled to some legalrights and subjecting them to certain legal liabilities. Sub sectionofSection 4 which requires registration of Rent agreement also starts with anon obstante clause. However this non obstante clause is made operableagainst all the provisions contained in the Registration Act. Before theamendment of the year 2014 even the authority where the rent agreement wasto be registered was specified to be the Rent Authority itself. The authoritiesunder the Registration Act had no concern with the rent agreement. Hence itwas not a document compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of theRegistration Act. Rather due to non obstante clause it was registrable onlyunder Section 4 of the Punjab Rent Act. The provision of Section 4 asamended by the amendment Act of 2014 prescribes that the rent agreementunder the Act shall be in the format specified in the schedule to the Act and the 2 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 21 same shall be registered under and in accordance with the provisions of andwith the authorities prescribed under the Registration Act. However the fee tobe paid for such registration has been specified by the provision of Section 4itself. Hence it is clear that while sub sectionof Section 4 overridesSection 107 of the Transfer of Property Act sub sectionis enacted in thenature of over riding the provisions of the Registration Act 1908 except to theextent of same being saved by the language of this very sub section that is regarding the authorities with which and the manner in which it is to beregistered. The compulsory registrability and the form of the rent agreement isnot arising from Section 17 of the Registration Act. Rather the registrability the format of agreement and the fee payable for such registration are referable exclusively to Section 4 of Punjab Rent Act and not Section 17 or any otherprovision of the Registration Act. Any other interpretation would render thenon obstante clause used against Registration Act as nugatory. Hence eventhe word under used in Section 4 has to be read as relating to formalities andrequirement to be completed for undergoing the procedure of registration underthe Registration Act. Therefore registration of rent agreement is referable toSection 4 of the Punjab Rent Act and not to the provision of Section 17 of theRegistration Act. The second aspect of this provision is that it does not createany consequences for non registration of a rent agreement entered into betweenthe parties under the Act. In the Punjab Rent Act there is no other provisionalso prescribing any consequences for non registration of rent agreement.Therefore this provision as contained in Section 4of the Act is onlydirectory in nature. Once an agreement is in writing as is contemplated undersub sectionof Section 4 it becomes a valid agreement. Mere non 2 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 22 registration of this agreement does not divest it of its essential character andnature. Since the provision as contained in sub sectionrequires registrationand procedure thereof and no further consequences are provided for it thisregistration can be interpreted to be only by way of ensuring that the publicauthorities are having the record of the rent agreements and the scope ofdisputes between the parties to the agreements is narrowed down. But nonregistration of the agreements as such would not make the agreements to bevoid. Issue No.is enacted with a non obstante clause the provision of the Registration Act except to the extent thesame are saved by this very sub section stand excluded. Section 49 of theRegistration Act 1908 is not saved by this Section. Therefore the non registration of rent agreement cannot be interpreted to have the effect upon it asare prescribed under Section 49 of the Registration Act. Moreover theprohibition created by Section 49 of the Registration Act is invited only qua thedocuments which are required to be compulsorily registered under Section 17of the Registration Act or under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.As observed above the registerability of a rent agreement under the PunjabRent Act is referable to Section 4of the Punjab Rent Act and not to Section17 of the Registration Act or any provision of the Transfer of Property Act.Rather sub sectionof Section 4 of the Rent Act uses non obstante clauseeven against the Transfer of Property Act in the matter of requirement orexecution of the rent agreement. Therefore merely because a rent agreement isnot registered one that would not operate as a bar for leading the same inevidence. Section 4 of the Act is a complete code in itself on the point of 2 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 23 execution and registration of the agreement. This being a subsequent andspecific Act shall be deemed to have superseded the provisions of theRegistration Act on the matters dealt with by it other than specificallyprotected by the language of this very Act. This is particularly so because ofthe language introduced in this Act by the legislature which has been used inthe nature of over riding the provisions of the Registration Act and Transfer ofProperty Act. Accordingly this Court finds that the Appellate Authority hasrightly arrived at the conclusion that non registration of the agreement would per se neither make the agreement as void and liable to be not considered bythe Courts nor would the same make it inadmissible in evidence. Theregistration if resorted to by the parties would have the presumption of truthattached to the document. However even in absence of such registration either of the parties can rely upon the same if it is admitted by the other side oris proved by one side in accordance with law.So far as the present case is concerned a bare perusal of thepleadings of the parties show that the respondent landlord has mentioned inspecific details the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into betweenthe parties. The petitioner in the written statement filed before the RentAuthority has not denied anyone of the details mentioned in the petition filedby the landlord rather he has resorted to only a vague denial by saying wrongand denied . Provisions of Order 8 Rules 3 and 4 CPC requires the pleadingsof the parties to be specific so as to decipher the dispute between the parties. Ifthe defendant in a proceeding does not specifically denies the categoric andspecific pleadings of the plaintiff then the Court would be well within its 2 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 24 authority to presume that such a party has admitted the contents of theplaint petition. The reliance by counsel for the respondent in this regard onjudgment rendered in the case of Sat Paul Singhis well placed. Sincethe petitioner herein respondent in the eviction petition has not specificallydenied anyone of the specific details of pleadings of the landlord therefore thethe Lower Appellate Authority has rightly taken it to be the admission on thepart of the petitioner. Once there was admission on the part of the petitioner qua his default in payment of rent qua relation of landlord and tenant thennothing more was required to be adjudicated by the Court. Hence the Courtbelow has rightly passed the order setting aside the issues framed by the RentAuthority as well.One more aspect which deserves mentioned herein is that thelandlord respondent had also taken the personal requirement as the ground forfiling the eviction petition. On that the Rent Authority below had framed anissue as to whether the requirement of the landlord was bona fide or not Thisapproach of the Court below is against the provisions of the Act. Provisionregarding seeking ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal requirementunder Punjab Rent Act 1995 is drastically different than its predecessor Act.Right of Landlord to seek ejectment on expiry of duration of agreement istotally unqualified. The Landlord is not required to show any personalnecessity. Even in case of seeking ejectment before expiry of tenure the Actdoes not contemplate the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The onlything which is prescribed under Section 20of the Act is that the landlordshould not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation. Hence therequirement of reasonableness is qua the suitability for the requirements of the 2 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 25 landlord and not qua the intentions of the landlord. Therefore whether thelandlord is filing a petition with totally mala fide intention or bona fide one that is irrelevant under the Act. No Court can defeat the eviction petition of alandlord on the ground that his requirement is not bona fide. Needless to say that suitability for his requirements is primarily the concern of the landlord and not of the tenant or the Courts as such unlessthe Courts find that the suitability claimed by the landlord qua this requirementis not reasonable. Again the word reasonably would not mean bona fide or just or fair . The word reasonably used in the Section would have a referenceto a logical deduction as to the propriety of the claim of the landlord as per anordinary person of ordinary prudence vis a vis his proposal with respect to hisstated requirement and the consequences which the landlord may have to sufferin case such a property is not restored to him. This exercise of reasoning has tobe carried out by the Court only with reference to the requirements andconsequences qua the landlord. The requirement or concern of the tenant aretotally irrelevant for this purpose. This provision is not by way of anysympathy towards the tenant. The law does not permit interpolation of anyunnecessary socialism into a provision of an Act by way of Courtinterpretations except to the extent it is so introduced in the provision of theAct itself. The socialistic approach whatever though fit by the legislature quathe tenant is already included in the Act itself as contained in Section 29wherein the Act prescribes that if after getting the possession of the property the landlord again lets out the same within a period of 3 years then the tenantcan apply for restitution of his possession and also in Section 67 of the Actwhereunder a landlord is liable to be punished for use or lease of his own 2 From Local Server on 26 08 CR No. 72619with connected matters 26 property just to protect the interest of a tenant! Therefore qua the requirementof a landlord the provision contained in Section 20(q) is the start and endof the socialistic sympathy towards the tenant. No more condition can becreated by the Courts against the landlord by importing the concept of bona fide necessity of the landlord. Needless to say that a landlord purchases theproperty either for his enjoyment or for his income and not for the benefit ofany unscrupulous or even of a genuine tenant if the same is not suitable for thepurposes of the landlord. Hence while dealing with an eviction petition filedunder Section 20(q) the Rent Authority cannot frame an issue as to therequirement of the landlord to be of a bona fide necessity . Order of the LowerAppellate Authority qua setting aside the order of the Rent Authority framingissues is also justified for this reason.In view of the above and for the undisputed fact that the petitionerhas not paid the rent even during long pendency of proceedings before variousauthorities Court this Court finds the present petitions to be a blatant misuse ofthe process of the Courts. Hence all these petitions are dismissed with cost ofRs. One lakh in total. Further the petitioner is ordered to be evicted from thepremises in question with immediate effect. The landlord is held entitled toarrears of rent at the rate as per the agreement and with statutory rate of interest@ 15% per annum from the date of filing of the petitions till actually receivingthe possession of the premises in question. Accordingly the Rent Authority isdirected to :with connected matters 27 of the petitions till the date of actual handing over of thepossession to the landlord and to order immediate recovery of thesame as arrears of land revenueJUDGE12.8.2021AshwaniSpeaking Reasoned:Yes NoReportable:Yes No 

Summary: It appeared that the petitioner had not paid the rent during the long pendency of proceedings and the present petition is to be a blatant misuse of the process of courts. So, all the petitions would be dismissed with a cost of Rs. One lakh held by Hon’ble Justice Rajbir Sehrawat in M/s A.R.Ventures and another versus M/s Roop Square Pvt. Ltd. and another [CR No. 7265 of 2019 (O &amp; M)]. The cost imposed on the petitioner has to be deposited within 45 days of the order given. If no receipt of such deposit is submitted to the registry of the Court, then action is to be taken for necessary recovery. The facts leading to this case relate to the petition filed by the tenant, which he was using two premises w.e.f. 15.1.2017 under two separate agreements dated 1.12.2016. Respondent was the owner of the two properties mentioned in the buildings Roop square complex in Ludhiana. The petitioner had taken the top floor and 4th floor on rent with two separate written agreements dated 1.12.2016 with the monthly rent for the top floor was Rs. 1lakh monthly and 4th floor with Rs.4lakh monthly with 5% increment per annum, and the tenancy was fixed for 9years. The allegation was petitioner had paid rent for 5month only with intermittent default and after that defaulted for payment. Respondent verbally requested defaulted payment. After the request, some settlements were done and then again, the default was started. Without paying the rent, he was enjoying the property, and even he was not paying the electricity charges and any other taxes and the respondent was forced to pay the GST. Then respondent filed the two separate petitions under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995. For recovery of possession as well as claiming his requirement for expanding his business. The petitioner has also filed the petition under Section 20(2) of the Act stated that the respondent had not given any notice in the prescribed manner, so the eviction petition was void and deserved to be rejected, and the petitioner has also filed the written petition that Rent Authority taken this consideration and framed this issues for its determination. The Appellate Authority considered four appeals, two filed by the petitioner/tenant and two filed by the respondent/landlord. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner and held that the Rent Authority had rightly rejected the application for rejection of the eviction petitions. In the appeal filed by the respondent/landlord, the Appellate Authority held that since the tenant has not paid the rent and the default continued even during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Authority, therefore, the tenant was liable to be evicted for non-payment of rent. Hence, the appeals filed by the Landlord were allowed. Counsel of the petitioner has stated that the Rent Authority was restrained from passing such an order because the respondent has not given any written notice prescribed in Section 20(2) and also submitted that the agreement was not registered as per section 4 of the Act, so same is not admissible in evidence as per section 49 of the Registration Act, 1860. so this agreement has not no legal value and has not been led in evidence by the respondent. Counsel also submitted during the pendency the Landlord has disconnected the facilities available to the tenant. Which is against section 19 of the Act.