HARISH VASHISHT Vs. GAURAV GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (landlord) against the judgment and order dtd. 6/1/2020, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Panchkula in Rent Petition No. 352 of 2013, vide which it allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent (tenants), against the judgment dtd. 29/1/2015, passed by Rent Controller, in a petition u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity 'the Act'), wherein, they were ordered to be ejected from the demised premises i.e. Shop No. 29, situated in abadi of village Abhaypur, Industrial Area Phase-I, Panchkula.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner in the rent petition filed before the Rent Controller, Panchkula, may be noticed thus:-

(3.) The respondent No.1 while filing his written statement controverted the averments made by the petitioner by submitting that he had not approached the Court with clean hands and had in fact, concealed true and material facts. It was submitted that an agreement to sell dtd. 9/1/2008 was executed between the parties with regard to the property in question for a total consideration of Rs.13,50,000.00. Rs.2,00,000.00 was paid to the petitioner as earnest money through cheque dtd. 7/1/2008. It was agreed between the parties that the last date for execution and registration of the sale-deed would be 22/2/2008. However, on 21/2/2008, the petitioner approached the respondent with a request to pay him Rs.5,75,000.00 and then with the mutual consent of both the parties, the date of execution and registration of the sale-deed was extended to 7/3/2008. On 16/4/2008, the last date for execution and registration of the sale-deed was again extended to 15/5/2008. Even though, the respondent No.1 and his father were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, however, the petitioner again approached the respondent No.1 with a request that he was still unable to execute and register the sale-deed. The respondent No.1, on the other hand, wanted to start a chemist shop and also he requested the petitioner to at least hand them over the possession of the demised premises, as they required lease-deed/title-deed of the shop in question for getting the requisite license from the authorities concerned. A complaint was also subsequently made to the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula, against the petitioner by the respondents alleging that he was not executing and registering the sale-deed as per the agreement arrived at between the parties. Thereafter, the petitioner acknowledged before the police qua the receipt of the sale-consideration and also undertook to execute the sale-deed on or before 4/4/2011 or as per the convenience of the respondent. A duly sworn-in affidavit qua the aforesaid undertaking was given by the petitioner. Despite the undertaking given by the petitioner by way of his affidavit, on 28/4/2011, when the respondent No.1 and his father went to the Sub-Registrar office, Panchkula, for the execution and registration of the sale-deed, the petitioner did not turn up. Resultantly, the respondent No.1 along with his father, got their presence marked in the Sub-Registrar Office by way of an affidavit dtd. 28/4/2011. The respondent No.1 did not dispute the execution of a rent-deed between him and the petitioner, but asserted that it was only for the purpose of obtaining a licence for running their chemist shop. The respondent, thus, categorically denied that the existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.