- (1.) The petitioner is the tenant in premises owned by the respondents which is a Shop-cum-Office in up market Sector 34-C, Chandigarh. He was inducted as a tenant on the ground floor of the demised premises on April 15, 1988 on a monthly rent of Rs.6500/-. He was put in possession under a rent agreement executed by the parties. The respondents instituted a suit for possession by way of eviction of the petitioner in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh on December 18, 1990 and prayed for recovery of rent from July 1990 to November 1990. The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act ) as applicable to Chandigarh did not apply at the time since the building in question was exempted from the purview of the Act for a period of five years from the grant of sewerage connection duly sanctioned by the Estate Office, Chandigarh. While the suit was pending, the parties agreed to compromise the matter in writing in terms of a compromise deed (C-2) executed on January 23, 1999. It was agreed that the defendant would remain in possession of the ground floor of SCO No.168 Sector 34-C, Chandigarh for a period of 10 years w.e.f. December 01, 1998 to November 20, 2008 during which period the petitioner agreed to pay the rent at rates specified in the compromise up to November 30, 2008 by which date the rent gradually rose to a monthly rent of Rs.18,619/- as on November 30, 2008 which was the exit terminus. One of the recitals at Sr. No.6 was that a lease deed will be executed by the parties which shall be got registered. In is the common case that this did not happen but the tenancy continued in terms of rent agreement dated January 23, 1999. The compromise deed and the rent agreement were signed on the same day. In the fresh rent agreement parties agreed to renew the tenancy further in favour of the tenant but on novated terms and conditions by enhancing the rent from Rs.6,500/- to Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, the rent agreement dated April 15, 1988 was substituted by the fresh rent agreement (C-1) and with the change over the old rent payable was enhanced to Rs.12,000/- per month for the period December 01, 1998 to November 30, 1999 in terms of the compromise (C-2). The 3rd recital fixed the tenancy period for 10 years commencing w.e.f. 1st December 1998. The 11th recital called upon the tenant after the expiry of the tenancy to hand over the physical and vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord only. The 12th recital obligated the tenant to bear the expenses of registration charges of the rent agreement as well as on the stamp papers as noted above for executing the lease deed. But the rent agreement was not controverted to a lease deed for reasons best known to the parties.
(2.) It may be noted that the statements of the landlord and tenant before the Civil Court that passed the compromise decree was not placed on record of this petition though it was the most relevant and material record required in deciding this case.
(3.) Mr. Mohinder Nain, learned counsel appearing with the learned senior counsel has produced a photocopy of the statements made by the parties and the same are taken on record without any objection from the other side and are marked 'A'. When both the compromise deed and the rent agreement were presented to the Court for giving effect to the compromise both the documents were duly exhibited on record. The rent agreement was described as Ex.C1 and the compromise deed as Ex.C2. The tenant and the landlord agreed to waive off mesne profits claimed by the landlord to buy peace and tranquillity of an assured period of the tenancy by the prudent policy of give and take. The suit was decreed in terms of the compromise which was made part of the decree sheet prepared on the same day i.e. 23rd January 1999. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chandigarh directed parties to remain bound by their statements recorded separately.;