Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 119 (MP)

Swetakumari v. Shivshankar

2012-01-27

N.K.MODY

body2012
ORDER 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. No.13515/2010 as in both the petitions question involved is one and the same and also in both the suits the respondent is one and the same. 2. In W.P. No.7670/2011 the order under challenge is dated 14/09/2011 passed by V Civil Judge, Class-II, Ratlam in civil suit No.61-A/2009 whereby the objection raised by the petitioner regarding admissibility of the document in evidence was rejected while in W.P. No.13515/2010 the order under challenge is dated 17/09/2010 passed by IV Civil Judge, Class-II, Ratlam in civil suit No.86-A/2009 whereby objection regarding admissibility of the document was rejected. 3. Short facts of the case are that Shivshanker respondent filed a suit for eviction in W.P. No.7670/2011 under Section 12 (1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act on 17/01/2002 alleging that petitioner is the tenant in the suit accommodation vide rent note dated 28/02/1995 @ Rs.500/- per month and also deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- as deposit. It was alleged that since the rent is not being paid and petitioner is in arrears of rent, therefore, a decree of eviction be passed. Shivshanker also filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner in W.P. No.13515/2010 alleging that petitioner is tenant in the suit shop on rent vide rent note dated 14/02/1991 @ Rs.600/- per month. It was alleged that rent note was executed on 17/06/1994 and thereafter on 27/09/1997 and rent was enhanced from time to time. It was alleged that since arrears has not paid inspite of demand, therefore, decree of eviction be passed. Both the suits were contested by the petitioner on various ground. At the stage of evidence objection was raised by the petitioner about the admissibility of the rent note in evidence as the document was not registered and also not properly stamped. The objections were rejected by the learned Court below, hence these petitions. 4. Mr. SC Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set-aside. It is submitted that since the rent note was for a period of more than one year, therefore, it requires to be registered. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Court below committed error in rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that since the rent note was for a period of more than one year, therefore, it requires to be registered. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Court below committed error in rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner. Reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Karam Singh (Sardar) Vs. Madanlal 1969 JLJ SN 143 wherein this Court held that in a case where rent note create three years lease, its terms could not be proved at all if un-registered. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Sunil Kumar Roy Vs. M/s Bhowra Kankanee Collories Ltd. 1971 JLJ SN 22 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that document changing essential terms of a registered lease, registration is compulsory. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Kapoor Chand Jain Vs. Choudhari Prasanna Kumar 1994 (II) M.P.W.N. 155 wherein this Court held that lease deed cannot be looked even for collateral purposes. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Santosh Jayaswal Vs. State of M.P. 1996 JLJ 152 = AIR 1996 SC 207 wherein in a case of right to catch fish in tank and lease for a period more than one year Hon’ble Apex Court held that document requires to be engrossed with required stamp duty and registered under section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra 2009 (2) SCCD 819 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that section 35 of the Indian Stamps Act prohibits admissibility of such document for any purpose whatsoever, hence no reason how document would be admissible for collateral purpose. On the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below be set-aside. 5. Mr. Brajesh Garg, learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the rent note was for a period of 11 months and was executed by tenant in favour of landlord, therefore, learned Court below has rightly rejected the objections raised by the petitioner regarding admissibility of the document. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Sitaram Vs. Brajesh Garg, learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the rent note was for a period of 11 months and was executed by tenant in favour of landlord, therefore, learned Court below has rightly rejected the objections raised by the petitioner regarding admissibility of the document. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Sitaram Vs. Shankarlal 1986 JLJ 224 wherein this Court has held that a lease-deed is required to be registered by both lessor and lessee and if the instrument is to be registered is not a lease-deed. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Ghasi Ram Vs. Malomy Club AIR 1923 Allahabad 382 (2) wherein Allahabad High Court has observed that in a lease there is an express term that the lessee shall vacate the land in case he fails to pay the rent or whenever the lessor requires him to do so, the lease is not a lease for terms exceeding one year though a longer period of 30 years is mentioned in the lease and the lessee is liable to be ejectment. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Maharajsingh Vs. Prem Narain AIR 1980 MP 117 wherein this Court held that rent note executed by tenant creating monthly tenancy of premises at rent of Rs.3/- per month and tenancy determinable on mere demand of possession, the rent note not being covered by section 17 (1) (d), its registration is not compulsory and it does not come within mischief of section 107 nor would it be invalid for want of its execution by lessor, there is no question of its being hit by section 49 of Transfer of Property Act, therefore, it is valid. Lastly the reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Sagarmal Vs. Jethmal 1957 JLJ 1038 wherein this Court held that a unilateral document such as a rent note is not effective as a lease by reason of section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and if the document did not require registration under the Registration Act and was not a lease for the purpose of section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act it would require no registration. On the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and the same be dismissed. 6. Keeping in view the terms of rent note wherein the tenancy was for month-to-month and the landlord is having right to get the suit accommodation vacated by giving a notice. This Court is of the opinion that learned Court below committed no error in holding that document is neither insufficiently stamped nor requires registration. Thus, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner regarding admissibility of the document in evidence which requires no interference. In view of this, petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and the same stands dismissed. A copy of this order be kept in the record of W.P. No.13515/2010.