Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1990 DIGILAW 39 (ALL)

Ram Pati Ram v. District Judge, Ballia

1990-01-09

R.P.SINGH

body1990
JUDGMENT R.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Balia allowing the revision after setting aside the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court and ordering the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presenting it on the regular side before the Civil Courts. 2. The facts of the case, briefly are that the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against Sri Niwas, respondent No. 2 from the disputed shop on the ground that the petitioner was the landlord of the disputed shop of which the respondent No. 2 Shri Niwas was the tenant on a rent of Rs. 200 per month and failed to pay arrears of rent inspite of the notice of demand and further that since the shop in dispute had been constructed in the year 1981-82 and hence the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply in the case and on these allegations filed the suit for ejectment and arrears or rent. 3. Respondent No. 2 who was the defendant, contested the suit on the ground that he was owner of the accommodation and there was no relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties and no rent is payable and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. The Judge, Small Causes Court on going through the evidence on record, held that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is well established and since respondent No. 2 was found to be in arrears of rent the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed against him. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 2 went up in revision before the District Judge, Balia, who however, held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established between the parties and hence allowed the revision setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court and ordering the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper Civil Court. The petitioner has now preferred the present writ petition against the order passed by the learned District Judge. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner has now preferred the present writ petition against the order passed by the learned District Judge. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary contended that the Judge, Small Causes Court after appraisal of the evidence on record, had recorded a finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant is clearly established between the parties and the District Judge has gravely erred in setting aside this finding and allowing the revision and ordering the plaint to be returned for presentation before the proper Civil Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner had earlier filed a suit for specific performance of contract for sale against one Khuda Bux which was decreed by this Court on 4.11.1970 in second appeal No. 2939 of 1967 in pursuance of which a sale-deed was executed by Khuda Bux in favour of the petitioner alone. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit for ejectment against the tenant from the said accommodation and the suit filed by the petitioner against Tafazul Hussain, the tenant was decreed in pursuance of which a dakhal-dihani was obtained by the petitioner on 23.10.1980. After obtaining dakhal-dihani, the petitioner demolished the old building and after getting the map duly sanctioned by the Municipal Board, Balia in his name, constructed the present accommodation in dispute in the year 1981-82 and all these documents clearly establish the title of the petitioner alone over the disputed accommodation. Further, the petitioner has clearly established the title of the petitioner alone over the disputed accommodation. Further, the petitioner has clearly averred in paragraph 2 of the plaint that the disputed shop was let out to respondent No. 2 on a rent of Rs. 200 per month and in respect of the same an iqrarnama was latter executed on 30.6.1983. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the iqrarnama, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 4 to writ petition and in paragraph 1 of the said iqrarnama, it is stated that the letting of the disputed shop was done in May, 1983 and the iqrarnama was then executed on 30.6.1983. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that this is an iqrarnama or an agreement and not a lease on the basis of which the suit has been filed in the present case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that this is an iqrarnama or an agreement and not a lease on the basis of which the suit has been filed in the present case. Apart from iqrarnama the petitioner filed number of counterfoils of rent receipts duly signed by respondent No. 2 and the signatures on the counterfoils are admitted by respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the statement made by respondent No. 2 in the suit where he has clearly stated that the signatures on the counterfoils of the rent receipts were made to indicate the payment of rent. Thus, the signatures on the counterfoils of the rent receipts are clearly admitted by respondent No. 2 and hence there is ample evidence to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 8. The learned District Judge has treated the iqrarnama as rent deed and treating it to be the very basis of the suit, held that since this lease deed dated 30.6.1983 was not a registered document and hence it was not admissible in evidence and consequently no relationship of landlord and tenant is established between the parties and in support of this contention he relied on the case of Kedar Nath K. Anu v. Mahabir Prasad, 1985(1) ARC 84. The facts of that case are different. In that case the plaintiff's suit was itself on the rent note without any averment in the plaint that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. In the present case, however, the relevant document, dated 30.6.1983 is not a lease deed but an iqrarnama executed after letting of the disputed shop which had been done in May, 1983. In the present case, the lease appears to be oral and the iqrarnama was written subsequently incorporating certain conditions and seems to have been written to evidence certain conditions on which the lease had already been made. Such a document may not require registration. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent also invited my attention to the case Zarif Ahmad v. Satish Kumar, 1983(1) ARC 422, where it was held that the lease deed requires registration and hence it shall not be looked into for the purposes of creating rights purported to be done under it. Hence if the lease deed is not registered, it cannot be taken into evidence except for collateral purposes. Hence if the lease deed is not registered, it cannot be taken into evidence except for collateral purposes. However, in the present case, as observed earlier, it is an agreement subsequent to the oral letting of the disputed accommodation and not the lease which is the basis of creating the rights between the parties. As stated above, the averment in the iqrarnama itself is that the letting had been done in May, 1983 while this iqrarnama was executed on 30.6.1983 and hence it cannot be said to be the basis of creation of tenancy between the parties. Moreover, in view of the admitted signatures of respondent No. 2 on the various counterfoils of the rent receipts and even his statement in the cross-examination it is clearly established that he was occupying the disputed shop as a tenant of the petitioner and had been paying rent in lieu thereof. Relying on the evidence on record, in my opinion, the Judge, Small Causes Court had rightly held, that the relationship of landlord and tenant is established between the parties and since the respondent No. 2 was in arrears of rent, the suit was rightly decreed by him and the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and interfere with the findings of fact. Hence the order passed in revision by the learned District Judge allowing the revision and returning the plaint for presentation to the Civil Court on the regular side is clearly liable to be set aside. 10. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the learned District Judge, Balia, dated 31.8.1987 is set aside and the case is remanded back to him to decide the revision on merits in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.