LAWS(P&H)-1980-8-81

GAINDA RAM Vs. RANJIT SINGH

Decided On August 04, 1980
GAINDA RAM Appellant
V/S
RANJIT SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ranjit Singh, landlord-respondent, filed an eviction application on the allegations that Gainda Ram, petitioner had taken the house in dispute on the monthly rent of Rs. 7/- vide rent-note dated 20th September, 1963. It was stated in the eviction application that the tenant has to paid the rent from Ist December, 1971 to 31st August, 1974, to the extent of Rs. 23/-. In the written statement, the plea taken was that the tenant was not in arrears of "rent and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant as he is in possession of the house under agreement of sale dated 15th September, 1972. In the replication filed, the landlord took the stand that the said agreement had come to an end on 15th September, 1972, on account of the failure of the respondent to perform his part of the contract. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that after the agreement of sale, dated 15th September, 1972. Exhibit R. 1, the petitioner was not liable to pay rent to the respondent landlord and if he was not liable to pay rent, he ceased to be the tenant because according to him, the tenant is one by whom or on whose behalf rent is payable. It was also contended that the respondent also ceased to be the landlord because the 'landlord' means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building etc. It was further contended that under the said agreement. Exhibit R. 1, there is no stipulation that the petitioner will continue to pay the rent till the sale-deed is executed. Under these circumstances, it was argued that because of this agreement of sale between the parties, the relationship of landlord and tenant has defined in the Haryana (Urban Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, ceased to exist, and, therefore, the Appellate Authority and as well as the Rent Controller have acted illegally and improperly in deciding issue No. 1 against him. In support of this contention, he referred the Chhanka Ram v. Rehman and another, 1973 PunLJ 641.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that inspite of the agreement between the parties, the petitioner was liable to pay the rent, and, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant continued to exist between the parties till the sale was executed in performance of the sale agreement. In support of his contention, he relied upon Bhaiya Ram v. Mahavir Prasad,1968 PunLR 897 and Banshilal v. Noor Mohammad, 1970 RCR(Rent) 868.