1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed questioning the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 05.09.2018 dismissing the revision filed by the landlord-Appellant.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the appeal are:
3.1 The Appellant is a landlord of a shop measuring 14 sq. yds. Respondent took the shop on rent @Rs. 2,000/- per month for running a hair cutting and dressing work. The Respondent-tenant on 27.07.1993 executed an agreement/rent deed undertaking to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- each month. The rent deed was to be applicable w.e.f. 28.07.1993. The house tax and electricity bills were undertaken to be paid by the tenant. Rent was to be paid up to 5th day in each month to the owner. In event, the tenant failed to make the payment of rent up to the prescribed date in advance, the owner shall have right to get the shop vacated. The shop owner, if is in need of the shop, can serve notice of one month and get the shop vacated from the tenant. The tenant also undertook to make the payment of rent money by increasing 10 per cent each year.
3.2 An application Under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was filed by the Appellant-landlord dated 18.03.2006 praying for eviction of the tenant along with arrears of rent and house tax and interest on the arrears of rent. The Appellant's case was that rent is not paid from 28.01.2004 to 28.07.2004 and from 29.07.2004 to 28.02.2005. House tax since 1999 to 2005 amounting to Rs. 22,302/- was not paid.
3.3 The tenant filed objection to the application and contended that rate of rent is Rs. 1,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that at the time of taking shop in question, no other condition was agreed or settled. However, the signatures were obtained on some blank paper as security by the landlord, which appears to have been fabricated as alleged rent note. The tenant claimed to have paying the rent @Rs. 1,000/- per month till February, 2006, after which landlord refused to accept the rent.
3.4 The copy of the rent note dated 27.07.1993 was brought on the record as Exh. A-1. The Rent Controller held Exh.A-1-rent deed as proved. The Rent Controller held that rent note-Exh.A-1 is not signed by both the parties. The Rent Controller further held that although time is not specified, but it is not a lease deed, so not compulsorily registrable. The Rent Controller also held that tenant was liable to pay the house tax. The Respondent tendered rent @ Rs. 2,000/- w.e.f. 28.01.2004, which was accepted under protest. The Rent Controller held that tenant was in arrears of rent and house tax so the Respondent-tenant is liable to eviction from the premises in dispute. The Rent Controller held that there exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Controller allowed the application of the Appellant and directed eviction of the Respondent from the premises in question.
3.5 An appeal was filed by the tenant against the order of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Court did not agree with the findings of the Rent Controller that document Exh. A-1 was not compulsorily registrable. Appellate Court observed that perusal of the document Exh.A-1 reveals that there would be increase ........