JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present revision is preferred assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2013 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court/District Judge, Rudraprayag in Suit No. 01 of 2012 filed by plaintiff/respondent, herein, and for eviction of defendant/revisionist, herein, and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 30,000/- and to pay mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day from the date of termination of the tenancy. 2. Since facts are not in dispute, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present revision petition was heard finally and is being disposed of today. 3. Undisputedly, Mr. Kalika Prasad @ Anil Kala S/o Ram Prasad Kala let out shop in question to the defendant/revisionist, herein, for which a lease deed was also executed between defendant/revisionist, herein, and Anil Kala on 1.7.2000. Initially, rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month, however, it was agreed that after one year rent would be increased 10 per cent and every year there would be increase of 10 per cent rent. 4. Plaintiff/respondent, herein, preferred suit for eviction of the tenant/revisionist, herein, with the contention that plaintiff/respondent, herein, in fact, has purchased shop in question from earlier owner Kalika Prasad @ Anil Kala for which a document was written on the stamp paper of Rs.1,000/- on 29.8.2011. Having purchased the shop in question from the earlier owner Kalika Prasad @ Anil Kala, plaintiff issued notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to the tenant/defendant/revisionist, herein, terminating the tenancy on expiry of thirty days from the receipt of the notice and asking the revisionist, herein, to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and to handover vacant and actual possession of the shop in dispute to the plaintiff after expiry of thirty days from the date of receipt of notice. 5. Defendant/revisionist, herein, preferred his written statement before the trial court stating therein that plaintiff has not purchased the shop in question, therefore, plaintiff is neither owner nor landlord of property in question and, therefore, suit for eviction is liable to be dismissed. It has further been contended by the defendant/revisionist in the written statement that in fact defendant has paid the total cost of the shop to Kalika Prasad @ Anil Kala and, therefore, defendant has acquired ownership right of the shop in question. 6. It has further been contended by the defendant/revisionist in the written statement that in fact defendant has paid the total cost of the shop to Kalika Prasad @ Anil Kala and, therefore, defendant has acquired ownership right of the shop in question. 6. Undisputedly, plaintiff/respondent, herein, is claiming to have purchased shop in question vide document dated 29.8.2011, certified copy of which is placed on record as Annexure No. 3 to the revision. A perusal of document dated 29.8.2011 reveals that plaintiff is alleging to have purchased the shop in question for Rs. 5,00,000/-. 7. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 reads as under : “54. “Sale” defined – “Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made. – Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immovable property, of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. 8. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an immovable property having value of more than Rs.100/- can only be transferred by way of registered instrument and not otherwise. Since document dated 29.8.2011 is not a registered document, therefore, it cannot be accepted as valid sale. 9. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent, herein, vehemently argued that plaintiff is ready and willing to pay deficit stamp duty, along with penalty thereon and therefore on payment of deficit stamp duty, the document dated 29.8.2011 can be considered as valid sale deed. 10. Argument so advanced by Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist is misconceived and does not hold water for the simple reason that even if it is presumed that plaintiff shall pay deficit stamp duty, the fact remains that it is an unregistered document. Registration is sine qua non for valid sale as per Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist is misconceived and does not hold water for the simple reason that even if it is presumed that plaintiff shall pay deficit stamp duty, the fact remains that it is an unregistered document. Registration is sine qua non for valid sale as per Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, I have no hesitation in observing that plaintiff has acquired no title vide document dated 28.9.2011. 11. Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act reads as under : “109. Rights of lessor’ s transferee.- If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer, cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him: Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee. The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium or rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part so transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any Court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased.” 12. As per Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act, transferee from the lessor becomes lessor of the property leased out. Since, plaintiff cannot be said to be a transferee in view of the findings as recorded hereinbefore, therefore, plaintiff never became lessor/landlord of the defendant/revisionist, herein. Therefore, plaintiff has absolutely no locus standi to file suit for eviction of the tenant/revisionist, herein. 13. Since, plaintiff cannot be said to be a transferee in view of the findings as recorded hereinbefore, therefore, plaintiff never became lessor/landlord of the defendant/revisionist, herein. Therefore, plaintiff has absolutely no locus standi to file suit for eviction of the tenant/revisionist, herein. 13. Finding of the learned Trial Judge that plaintiff has purchased the property and has become landlord thereof vide document dated 29.8.2011, on the face of it, is wrong, illegal and in violation of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act. It seems, learned trial court did not notice Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act. 14. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that since defendant has claimed title of the property in suit, therefore, he is liable to be evicted. 15. If tenant denies the title of the original landlord, which otherwise he cannot, in view of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, he shall be liable to be evicted only by the landlord and not by the present plaintiff, who has absolutely no title or right to file the suit for eviction. 16. Perusal of lease deed dated 1.7.2000 would reveal that tenancy was created for the period of more than eleven months. As per Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act, lease deed for more than eleven month requires mandatory registration. Since, lease deed in question is a unregistered document, therefore, same cannot be read in evidence in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act. However, it can be read for the collateral purpose to say that monthly tenancy was created in favour of the defendant by the owner/landlord of the shop, namely, Sri Kalika Prasad @ Anil Kala. 17. There is another aspect of the matter. Mr. Kalika Prasad @ Anil Kala himself has given one affidavit to the defendant/revisionist, herein, on 9.4.2012, Annexure No. 10 of the record, to the effect that he has never sold the shop in question in favour of the plaintiff. Mr. Kalika Prasad @ Anil Kala appeared in the witness box in the present case and has admitted his signature on the affidavit dated 9.4.2012. Therefore, in view of the above also, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has purchased property in question. 18. Consequently, revision is allowed. Impugned order passed by the trial court dated 13.11.2013 is set aside. Kalika Prasad @ Anil Kala appeared in the witness box in the present case and has admitted his signature on the affidavit dated 9.4.2012. Therefore, in view of the above also, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has purchased property in question. 18. Consequently, revision is allowed. Impugned order passed by the trial court dated 13.11.2013 is set aside. Suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed with cost and with exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. Out of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority and Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the defendant/revisionist, herein for facing unnecessary non-maintainable suit. 19. Let copy of this judgment be forwarded to State Legal Services Authority so that cost of Rs. 50,000/- may be recovered by the Authority from the plaintiff/respondent, herein. 20. CLMA No. 13780 of 2013 also stands disposed of accordingly. 2014 (2) UAD 147 UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia Writ Petition No. 1040 (M/S) of 2013 MANISH THAPLIYAL & ORS. – Petitioners Versus H.N.B. GARHWAL CENTRAL UNIVERSITY & ORS. – Respondents WITH Writ Petition No. 1042 (M/S) of 2013 NEHA PANDEY & ORS. – Petitioners Versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents Decided on : 25.11.2013 For the Petitioners : Mr. Hem Chandra Joshi with Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocates For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ashish Joshi, Learned Standing Counsel For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Learned Counsel For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate For the Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate Educational Matter — Admission in B.P.Ed. course — Eligibility for — According to N.C.T.E. notification dated 23.07.2010 minimum percentage of marks fixed was not 45% but was 50% — Held that once admissions were granted to the students by a college when neither the college nor the students had any knowledge about restrictions in the admission on the basis of percentage — Then, it was obligatory for the University to allow the students in the examination — As there was no fault of the students who have obtained admission and they had got admission without suppressing any material — And directions to University for implementing the order of N.C.T.E. dated 23.07.2010 for the future admissions i.e. for the year 2013-14 on wards. (Paras 5, 6) ‘kS{kf.kd okn & B.P.Ed. (Paras 5, 6) ‘kS{kf.kd okn & B.P.Ed. ikB~;Øe esa izos’k & vgZrk & N.C.T.E. dh fnukad 23-07-2010 dh vf/klwpuk ds vuqlkj U;wure izfr’kr 50% Fkk u fd 45% & /kkfjr fd Nk=ksa dks dkWfyt }kjk izos’k ns fn;k x;k Fkk tc fd u rks dkWfyt dks u gh Nk=ksa dks izos’k esa izfr’kr ds vk/kkj ij izfrca/k dh lwpuk Fkh & rc ;g fo’ofo|ky; ds fy, ck/;dj Fkk fd Nk=ksa dks ijh{kk ds fy, LohÑfr nh tk, & Nk=ksa }kjk fdlh lwpuk dk neu fd, cxSj izos’k izkIr fd;k x;k Fkk & blfy, fo’ofo|ky; dks funsZ’k fd l= 2013&14 ds ckn ls NCTE ds vkns’k dks dk;kZfUor fd;k tk,A ¼izLrj 5] 6½ JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is the same, hence, both the writ petitions are being decided with a common judgment. However, for convenience the facts which are narrated relate to Writ Petition No.1040 (MS) of 2013. 2. The petitioners, before this Court, are the students doing Bachelor’s Degree in Physical Education, known as “B.P.Ed.” from a private College which is affiliated to H.N.B. Garhwal Central University. Admissions were granted to the petitioners somewhere in the month of September-October, 2012. However, at the time when petitioners appeared in the examination, an objection was raised by the University that the petitioners, infact, could not have been given admission in B.P.Ed. Course, as they had less than 45% marks in their graduation with a Physical Education as an elective subject. 3. According to the petitioners, the private Institutions where the petitioners are undergoing training of their course, there was no such restriction from the University, regarding a candidate having more than 45 % marks in order to get admission in B.P.Ed. course. The stand of the University is contained primarily in Paragraph 5 of the Counter Affidavit, according to which for the Year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 the students who have obtained 40% marks in the their graduation were allowed to appear in B.P.Ed. Course but as soon as the notification of the N.C.T.E. dated 23.07.2010 was brought to the notice of the University, it had no option but to follow the notification and, therefore, in compliance of the direction contained in the notification dated 23.07.2010 it did not allow the petitioners to appear in the examination, as the admission of such students having less than 45% marks was itself wrong. The notification dated 23.07.2010 has also been annexed along with the Counter Affidavit. 4. As per the notification, it is not 45 % but a student must possess Bachelor’s Degree with Physical Education as an elective subject with 50% marks but thereafter certain weightage have been given to some categories of graduate students who have participated in certain National or State or Inter University level sports competitions. For ready reference, the guidelines of the Notification as contained in Clause 2 are as follows:- “(2) Eligibility. Bachelor’s Degree with Physical Education as an elective subject with fifty per cent marks; or Bachelor’s Degree with Physical Education as an elective subject with forty-five per cent marks and participation in National or State or Inter-University competitions in sports or games or athletics recognized by Association of Indian Universities or Indian Olympic Association; or Bachelor’s Degree with forty-five per cent marks and having participated in National or State or Inter-University Sports or games or athletics; or For deputed in-service candidates (i.e. trained physical education teachers/coaches) Graduation with forty-five per cent marks and at least three years of teaching experience; or Provided that the reservation of seats for SC or ST or OBC and other categories shall be as in accordance with the Central Government of State Government rules and a relaxation of five per cent in marks in eligibility qualification shall be allowed to candidates belonging to those categories” 5. So, the contention of the petitioners would be that the minimum percentage of marks fixed by the N.C.T.E. in its notification dated 23.07.2010 is infact not 45 % but it is 50% which has not been followed by the University in any case. 6. So, the contention of the petitioners would be that the minimum percentage of marks fixed by the N.C.T.E. in its notification dated 23.07.2010 is infact not 45 % but it is 50% which has not been followed by the University in any case. 6. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court feels that once admissions were granted to the students by a college when neither the College nor the students had any knowledge about restrictions in the admission on the basis of percentage, it was the obligation of the University to allow the students in the examination, particularly, when they got their training and when it is the clear stand of the College itself that there was no such instruction of the University while granting admission to these students about the minimum percentage of 45% and the University itself in its counter affidavit has specifically stated that although the order of the N.C.T.E. was received as far back as on 27.07.2010, while the admissions were made in the year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, this Court deems it fit and proper that the students who have got admission for the year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, whether they were having 40% marks or less than 45% or even less than 50% marks, as stated in the notification dated 23.07.2010, the University and the College shall allow them to appear in the examination, as there is no fault of the students who have obtained admission and they have got admission without suppressing any material. The University shall implement the order of N.C.T.E. dated 23.07.2010 for the future admissions i.e. for the year 2013-14 on wards. 7. It is further directed that the Colleges also, in order to avoid any complication which may arise in future, will promptly inform the University about the admissions given by them, so that any anomaly present in such admission be detected in time. 8. With the above observations and directions, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.