JUDGMENT 1. - The present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff landlord being aggrieved by the reversal of judgment & eviction decree dated 12.8.2009 passed by the learned trial court in civil original suit no. 33/2007 - Madan Lal v. Jain Brothers vide judgment dated 26.11.2010 of learned Additional District Judge, Gulabpura District Bhilwara in Civil Regular Appeal No. 11/2009 - M/s Jain Brothers v. Madanlal. 2. The learned trial court passed the eviction decree upon termination of tenancy in respect of the suit shop situated at Gulabpura, Bhilwara where, at the relevant point of time, the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 or the new Rent Control Act, 2001 did not apply and the landlord terminated the tenancy by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act w.e.f. 30/9/2007 inter alia on the ground of non-payment of rent and also for the bonafide need of the landlord. The learned trial court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 12/8/2009 while deciding the issue relating to relationship of landlord and tenant in favour of the plaintiff in the following manner:- vc iz'ku ;g gS fd D;k oknh dk izfroknh fdjk;snkj gS vkSj muds chp edku ekfyd ,oa fdjk;snkj dk laca/k gS ;k ugha\ bl laca/k esa lcls egRoiw.kZ vk/kkj ekuuh; vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] xqykciqjk ds okn la[;k 36@02 dh fMdzh dks cuk;k x;k gSA bl fMdzh dk ;fn voyksdu fd;k tkos rks mlesa Li"V fy[kk gS fd dLck xqykciqjk esa tks nqdku tSu czn'kZ ds fdjk;s ij gS og izfroknh enuyky ( bl izdj.k ds oknh ) dh jgsxhA ;g jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij mDr ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fMdzh ikfjr dh xbZ FkhA ftldh lwpuk oknh }kjk izfroknh dks tfj, uksfVl fMdzh ,oa fu.kZ; dh izfr Hkstrs gq, nh xbZ FkhA gekjh jk; esa fo}ku vf/koDrk okLrs izfroknh dk ;g rdZ ekuus ;ksX; ugha gS fd mUgsa Jherh xaxk nsoh }kjk fdlh izdkj dh lwpuk ugha nh xbZ D;ksafd oknh enuyky us vius fgLls vkbZ nqdku ds ckcr izfroknh fdjk;snkj dks lwpuk ns nh Fkh rks ;g vc izfroknh fdjk;snkj dk drZO; Fkk fd og U;k;ky; dh mDr fMdzh ds ekeys esa dk;Zokgh djrkA ;g dgha Hkh vko';d ugha gS fd iwoZ edku ekfyd bl izdkj dh lwpuk nsrkA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us Jherh Lo:i nsoh op vU; cuke ewrhZ Hkxoku lR;ukjk;.k th] 2008 ( 1 ) Mh0,u0ts0 ist 549] ds izdj.k esa ;g O;oLFkk nh fd vUrfjrh edku ekfyd vkSj fo|eku fdjk;snkj ds laca/k iSnk fd;s tkus ds fy, fdjk;snkj dh Lohd`fr iwoZ 'krZ ugha gSA tc ,d ckj lwpuk dk gd iw.kZ gks tkrk gSA rks Lohd`fr Lor% gks tkrh gSA gLrxr izdj.k esa Hkh ,slk gh gSA oknh us izfroknh dks iathd`r uksfVl o U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; o fMdzh Hkstdj Lo;a ds ekfyd gksus dh lwpuk ns nh FkhA bl izdkj ;g fof/kd n`"Vkar gLrxr izdj.k ij iw.kZr% ykxw gksrk gSA ekuuh; e/; izns'k mPp U;k;ky; us Hkh ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1965 ist 1 esa ;g O;oLFkk nh fd la;qDr ifjokj dh lEifr ds fy, dksbZ Hkh lank;xh ;k laHkkxh uksfVl ns ldrk gS vkSj gLrxr izdj.k esa rks blls Hkh Li"V O;oLFkk gS fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ls oknh dks fookfnr nqdku dk ekfyd crk;k x; gSA ftldh lwpuk fof/kor :i ls izfroknh dks nh xbZ fQj Hkh mlus u rks fdjk;k tek djok;k] u oknh dks edku ekfyd ekuus ij lger gqvk] tks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls ekuus ;ksX; ugha gSA bl izdkj gekjh jk; esa oknh ,oa izfroknh ds e/; edku ekfyd ,oa fdjk;snkj dk laca/k ekuuh; vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] xqykciqjk ds fu.kZ; ,oa mijksDr nksuksa fof/k n`"Vkar dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, LFkkfir gS vkSj mldh lwpuk fu;r le; ij izfroknh dks Hkh nh xbZ vkSj gekjh jk; esa izfroknh oknh dk fdjk;snkj gSA bl izdkj mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij fook|d la[;k 1 o 5 dks oknh vius i{k esa lansg ls ijs izekf.kr fd;k gs tks oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknh ds fo:) fu.khZr fd, tkrs gSaA * * *" mHk;i{kksa ds rdksZa ij euu fd;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA izLrqr fof/kd n`"Vkarksa dk lknj voyksdu fd;k x;kA tgka fd ekuuh; vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k egksn; xqykciqjk dh fMdzh dk iz'u gS mldks dgha Hkh iz'uxr ugha fd;k x;kA vc ;fn izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk voyksdu fd;k tkos rks Hkwiflag cuke jkeflag o vU;] 1996 ,0vkbZ0vkj0 lqizhe dksV ist 196 ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd ;fn bl fMdzh ds ifj.kkeLo:i dksbZ vf/kdkj l`ftr gksrk gS rks bldk iath;u vko';d gS fdUrq gLrxr izdj.k esa ,slk ugha gSA oknh ,oa Jherh xaxk nsoh dk ifr vkil esa nks HkkbZ FksA nksuksa dh la;qDr lEifRr Hkh mlesa ls foHkktu gqvk gS vFkkZr~ iwoZ esa ;g lEifRr ij oknh dk Hkh gd FkkA mls dksbZ fdlh izdkj dk u;k vf/kdkj bl foHkktu fMdzh ls izkIr ugha gqvk gSA gekjh jk; esa fdlh Hkh lEifRr dk lgHkkxh ;k lgnk;xh bl ckcr uksfVl ns ldrk gSA izfroknh us dgha Hkh ;g vLohdkj ugha fd;k fd Jherh xaxk nsoh dk ifr oknh dk HkkbZ ugha jgk gksA ;g ,d ikfjokfjd O;oLFkk ds rgr fMdzh tkjh dh xbZ gSA vr% gekjh jk; esa fo}ku vf/koDrk okLrs izfroknh ds }kjk izLrqr ;g fof/kd n`"Vkar gLrxr izdj.k ij ykxw ugha gksrk gSA blh izdkj izfroknh dh vksj ls U;kf;d n`"Vkar vfouk'k pkSgku cuke fot; d`".kk oxSjg] 2009 Mh0,u0ts0 ist 354] dk Hkh is'k fd;k x;k ftlesa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd tgkWa ij leqfpr LVkEi M~;wVh is'k ugha dh tkos ogka ij viathd`r fodz; i= lk{; esa xzkgkz ugha gksxkA fdUrq ;gkWa ij dksbZ fodz; i= dk iz'u ugha gS ;gkWa ij U;k;ky; dh fMdzh dk iz'u gS tks fd ,d ikfjokfjd le>kSrs ds rgr izLrqr gqbZ gSA vr% gekjh jk; esa ;s fof/kd n`"Vkar Hkh gLrxr izdj.k ij ykxw ugha gksrk gSA bl dze esa ;fn fo}ku vf/koDrk okLrs oknh }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar lksenso o vU; cuke jfrjke o vU;] 2008 MCY;w0,y0lh0 ( 8 ) ist 703] dk voyksdu fd;k tkos rks mlesa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g Li"V O;oLFkk nh gS fd ikfjokfjd O;oLFkk ds rgr tkjh dh xbZ fMdzh ds fy, iath; vko';d ugha gS vkSj og lk{; esa xzkgkz gSA gLrxr izdj.k esa Hkh tks fMdzh gqbZ gS og oknh ,oa mldh HkkHkh ds e/; ikfjokfjd le>kSrs ds vUrxZr gqbZ gS ftldk iath;u gekjh jk; esa vko';d ugha Fkk vkSj ftlds iath;u ugha gksus ls ,slk ugha gS fd oknh dks dksbZ vf/kdkj l`ftr ugha gq, gksaA oknh pwafd la;qDr lEifRr dk iwoZ ls ekfyd Fkk] Hkys gh mldk fdjk;k dksbZ Hkh ys jgk gks fdUrq mlesa oknh dk Hkh gd Fkk mls dksbZ u;k vf/kdkj l`ftr ugha gqvk gSA ,d ikfjokfjd le>kSrs ds vUrxZr tkjh fMdzh dk iath;u djok;k tkuk mPpre U;k;ky; ds mDr fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj vko';d ugha gS vr% gekjh jk; esa izfroknh ;g fook|d vius i{k esa izekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgk gS tks izfroknh ds fo:) ,oa oknh ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA "" mHk;i{kksa ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k x;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA gekjh jk; esa xaxk nsoh bl okn esa vko';d i{kdkj ugha gS D;ksafd iwoZ esa ;g lEifRr oknh ,oa xaxknsoh dh la;qDr Fkh rc mUgksaus ekuuh; vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k ds ;gka ls caVokjk djok;k vkSj mlds foHkktu ds ckn oknh bldk ekfyd cuk ftldh lwpuk ;Fkk le; izfroknh dks nh xbZA vr% gekjh jk; esa fdlh Hkh izdkj ls xaxknsoh vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k egksn;] xqykciqjk ds fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj bl lEifRr dh gdnkj ugha gksus ls vko';d i{kdkj ugha gS vkSj izfroknh ;g fook|d vius i{k esa izekf.kr djus es vlQy jgk gS tks izfroknh ds fo:) ,oa oknh ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA vr% mijksDr leLr foospu ds vk/kkj ij gekjh jk; esa oknh dk okn fo:) izfroknh fMdzh fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k vr% oknh enuyky iq= ewypan Vsyj fuoklh xqykciqjk] HkhyokM+k dk okn fo:) izfroknh eSa0 tSu cznlZ jftLV~MZ lk>snkj QeZ lnj cktkj] xqykciqjk] HkhyokM+k ckcr~ [kkyh djkus nqdku ,oa p<+k fdjk;k olwyh vUrxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 1 o 2 lh0ih0lh0 fuEukuqlkj lO;; fMdzh fd;k tkrk gS%& (1) izfroknh] oknh dks fu.kZ; dh fnukad ls 2 ekg ds Hkhrj mDr nqdku dks [kkyh dj laHkyk nsxkA (2) fd oknh izLrqr djus dh fnukad rd p<+k fdjk;k o mi;ksx miHkksx dh gtkZuk jkf'k 9]756@& :i;s izfroknh] oknh dks Hkqxrku djsxkA (3) okn izLrqr djus dh fnukad ls mDr nqdku [kkyh gksus rd 271@& :i;s izfrekg ds fglkc ls fdjk;k Hkh izfroknh] oknh dks Hkqxrku djsxkA vkns'kkuqlkj fMdzh ipkZ cuk;k tkosA vkns'kkuqlkj fMdzh ipkZ cuk;k tkosA " 3. The first appeal filed by the defendant - M/s Jain Brothers before the learned Addl. District Judge, Gulabpura, however, allowed the appeal of the defendant on 26/11/2010 holding in favour of the defendant that since the decree of partition upon a compromise between the plaintiff - Madan Lal and his sister-in-law (wife of his elder brother) was not registered and duly stamped, therefore, the same being not admissible in evidence did not confer the rights on the plaintiff-landlord to file the present suit for eviction. The relevant findings of the first appellate court are as under:- " 22- izLrqr lEekuuh; U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ls ekxZn'kZu izkIr djus ds i'pkr eSa ;g ikrk gwa fd ;g lgh gS fd Lohd`fr ( ,Mfe'ku ) ds vk/kkj ij tkjh dh xbZ fMdzh ikfjokfjd le>kSrs o ikfjokfjd O;oLFkk ds rgr tkjh dh xbZ foHkktu dh fMdzh dk LVkafir gksuk vkSj iathd`r gksuk vko';d ugha gS ysfdu izLrqr lEekuuh; U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ls ekxZn'kZu izkIr djus ij eSa ;g ikrk gwa fd jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij foHkktu dh fMdzh ikfjr fd;s tkus ij mldk LVkafir gksuk o jftLVMZ gksuk vko';d gSA foHkktu l;qaDr lEifRr dk gh gksrk gSA foHkktu ds le; lEifRr ds vnys&cnys esa vU; lEifRr dk lek;kstu Hkh laHko gSA ysfdu ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd la;qDr lEifRr ds foHkktu dh fMdzh dk LVkafir ,oa ithad`r gksuk vko';d u gksA 23- Hkw&Lokeh gksuk vkSj lEifRr dk Lokeh gksuk fdjk;snkjh dkuwu ds rgr fHkUu&fHkUu fLFkfr gSA dksbZ O;fDr fdlh lEifRr dk ekfyd u gksrs gq, Hkh fdjk;snkj ds fy, og ekfyd dh vksj ls Hkw&Lokeh ds :i esa gSlh;r izkIr dj ldrk gS blds fy, fyf[kr esa lekuqns'ku Hkh vko';d ugha gSA ysfdu bl ekeys esa izR;FkhZ&oknh us Hkw&Lokeh dh gSfl;r xaxknsoh dh vkSj ls gksuk ugha ekudj izn'kZ 4 fMdzh ds vk/kkj ij vius vkidks Hkw&Lokeh gksuk ekuk gSA tcfd izn'kZ 4 fMdzh ds vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZ&izfroknh us mls Hkw&Lokeh ekuus ls bUdkj fd;k gS vkSj izn'kZ 4 fMdzh dks izkjaHk ls gh iz'uxr fd;k gS fd ;g LVkafir vkSj iathd`r ugha gksus ds dkj.k lk{; esa xzkgkz; ugha gS vkSj fof/k esa bldk egRo ugha gSA 24- miyC/k lk{; o vfHkys[k ds voyksdu djus] cgl lquus o izLrqr fd;s x, lEekuuh; U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ls ekxZn'kZu izkIr djus ds i'pkr~ eSa ;g ikrk gwa fd vpy lEifRr ds foHkktu ds ckn esa jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij foHkktu dh fMdzh ikfjr dh tkrh gS rc Hkh mldk LVkafir gksuk vkSj iathd`r gksuk vko';d gS tks fd izn'kZ 4 fMdzh u rks LVkafir gS vkSj u gh iathd`r gS tcfd ;g jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij vpy lEifRr ds foHkktu dh fMdzh gSA blfy;s fof/kd n`f"V ls lk{; esa xzkgh; ugha gS vkSj bl izdkj rudh la[;k 6 ckcr tks fu"d"kZ fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us ikfjr fd, gSa os la/kkj.k ;ksX; ugha gS cfYd rudh la[;k 6 izfroknh vius i{k esa lkfcr djus esa lQy jgk gSA 25- izR;FkhZ oknh us uksfVl Hkstdj fdjk;snkjh lekIr djuk dFku fd;k gS ftlds vk/kkj ij rudh la[;k 3 dk;e dh xbZ gSA ysfdu bl lEiw.kZ izdj.k esa ;g dgha Hkh Li"V ugha gS fd i{kdkjku ds e/; Hkw&Lokeh ,oa fdjk;snkj ds laca/k fdl frfFk dks LFkkfir gq,A fdjk;snkjh lekfIr ls iwoZ Hkw&Lokeh o fdjk;snkj ds laca/k LFkkfir gksuk vko';d gSA tks LFkkfir gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSA tSlkfd rudh la[;k 6 ds fu"d"kksZa esa mYys[k fd;k x;k gS blfy;s rudh la[;k 3 ij ikfjr fu"d"kZ Hkh la/kj.k ;ksX; ugha gS cfYd rudh la[;k 3 oknh ds fo:) r; dh tkrh gSA 26- fu"d"kZ :i esa tc i{kdkjku ds e/; Hkw&Lokeh ,oa fdjk;snkj ds laca/k gh LFkkfir ugha gq, rc izR;FkhZ&oknh dks viyhFkhZ&izfroknh ls u rks dksbZ fdjk;k jkf'k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkj gS vkSj u gh viuh futh vko';drk ds vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZ&izfroknh ls fdjk;s'kqnk nqdku [kkyh djkus dk vf/kdkj gS vkSj u gh fdjk;snkjh lekIr djus dk mls dksbZ vf/kdkj gSA blfy;s mijksDr foospuk ,oa fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZ&izfroknh dh vihy Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; ikbZ tkrh gS vkSj fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gSA vkns'k 27- vihykFkhZ&izfroknh eSllZ tSu cznlZ dh vihy fo:) izR;FkhZ&oknh enuyky Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ( o0[k0 ) xqykciqjk ftyk HkhyokM+k }kjk ewy okn la[;k 33@2007 enuyky cuke eSllZ tSu cznlZ esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh fnukad 12-8-2009 dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izR;FkhZ&oknh dk okn fo:) vihykFkhZ&izfroknh [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS vihy dk [kpkZ nksuksa i{kdkjku viuk viuk Lo;a ogu djsaxsA fMdzh ipkZ i`Fkd ls dk;e fd;k tkosA bl fu.kZ; dh ,d izfrfyfi ds lkFk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh 'kh?kz ykSVkbZ tkosA ( QwypUn >k>fM+;k ) ( vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k ) xqykciqjk ( HkhyokM+k ) A 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment passed in appeal, the plaintiff landlord filed the present second appeal, which was admitted by the coordinate bench on 21/3/2014 and the following substantial questions of law was framed:- "Whether the learned lower first Appellate Court has erred in holding that the decree of partition passed on the basis of compromise requires to be duly stamped and registered and in the absence thereof the same is not admissible in evidence?" 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, Mr. Sanjay Nahar submitted that the first appellate court has wholly erred in not appreciating that in the partition suit for the partition of the joint family property between the plaintiff-Madan Lal and his sister-in-law - Ganga Devi on account of death of his elder brother, which suit property comprised of the suit shop also and upon the compromise between the parties, the decree was passed by the learned trial court and the suit shop fell in the share of plaintiff-Madan Lal, such decree upon a compromise in a pending civil suit did not require registration or stamp duty in view of the clear provision contained in Section 17 (2) (vi) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 since there was no immovable property other than that which is the subject matter of the suit and, therefore, such a decree given by the learned trial court upon a compromise did not require any registration or stamping as contended by the defendant tenant and the decree of partition was clearly admissible in evidence and on the basis of that the plaintiff got the status of landlord qua the defendant tenant and the attornment in his favour was automatic and consequently he was entitled to terminate the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the same was rightly granted by the learned trial court but it was reversed by the learned first appellate court on a wholly erroneous ground. He also submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Som Dev & Ors. v. Rati Ram & anr. - AIR 2006 SC 3297 : (2006) 10 SCC 788 and, therefore, the present second appeal of the plaintiff deserves to be allowed and the substantial question of law framed above deserves to be answered in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. 6. v. Rati Ram & anr. - AIR 2006 SC 3297 : (2006) 10 SCC 788 and, therefore, the present second appeal of the plaintiff deserves to be allowed and the substantial question of law framed above deserves to be answered in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff also informed the court that the suit property in question has further been sold by the plaintiff-Madan Lal in favour of one Sanjay Kumar Shah and, therefore, an application for impleadment on behalf of Sanjay Kumar Shah was filed in this Court on 1/12/2014 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which has been allowed by this Court on 4/2/2015. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat for Mr. Ravi Bhansali, appearing for the respondent-defendant-tenant contended that the appellate court was justified in holding that on the basis of partition decree given by the civil court upon a compromise and in the absence of same being registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the same could not confer any ownership or title in favour of the present appellant plaintiff - Madan Lal and the appellate court was justified in reversing the eviction decree on this ground. 8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the clear opinion that the appellate court has fallen into an error in reversing the eviction decree on the aforesaid ground. The provision of Section 17(2)(vi), which provides for a document not to be registered as per the Indian Registration Act, 1908 is clearly attracted in the present case. Section 17 (2) (vi) is quoted below for ready reference:- "17(2)(vi) any decree or order of a Court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject matter of the suit or proceedings;" 9. The suit property in question was very much the subject matter of the partition suit and by a decree upon compromise if the title was conveyed or conferred upon any party to the suit, then the registration and stamping of such decree upon compromise, is not required as per the clear provisions of Section 17(2) (vi) of the Registration Act, 1908. If only shop was purchased by any party to the partition suit & was transferred to other party as a consideration for compromise, it would have been a debatable issue, but that is not the fact here in this case. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Som Dev v. Rati Ram - (2006) 10 SCC 788 , explaining the provision, has clearly laid down in the following terms:- "On a plain reading of Section 17 of the Registration Act, with particular reference to clause (vi) of sub-section (2) it is clear that a decree or order of a court and a compromise decree that relates only to the subject matter of the suit need not be registered on the ground that it is a non testamentary instrument which purports to or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right to or in immovable property or which acknowledges receipt or payment of any consideration on account of a transaction which brings about the above results. But if a suit is decreed on the basis of a compromise and that compromise takes in property that is not the subject matter of the suit, such a compromise decree would require registration. Of course, we are not unmindful of the line of authorities that say that even if there is inclusion of property that is not the subject matter of the suit, if it constitutes the consideration for the compromise, such a compromise decree would be considered to be a compromise relating to the subject matter of the suit and such a decree would also not require registration in view of clause (vi) of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act. Since we are not concerned with that aspect here, it is not necessary to further deal with that question. Suffice it to say that on a plain reading of clause (vi) of Section 17(2) all decrees and orders of Court including a compromise decree subject to the exception as regards properties that are outside the subject matter of the suit, do not require registration on the ground that they are hit by Section 17(1)(b) and (c) of the Act. Suffice it to say that on a plain reading of clause (vi) of Section 17(2) all decrees and orders of Court including a compromise decree subject to the exception as regards properties that are outside the subject matter of the suit, do not require registration on the ground that they are hit by Section 17(1)(b) and (c) of the Act. But at the same time, there is no exemption or exclusion, in respect of the clauses (a), (d) and (e) of Section 17(1) so that if a decree brings about a gift of immovable property, or lease of immovable property from year to year or for a term exceeding one year or reserving an early rent or a transfer of a decree or order of a Court or any award creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing rights to and in immovable property, that requires to be registered." 11. It is also a well settled position of law that question of title is not really relevant in the eviction matters upon termination of tenancies under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act or even under the Rent Control Law, and the defendant cannot, therefore, contend that the plaintiff did not acquire any title under a particular decree upon compromise between the parties. The title of plaintiff- Madan Lal has not been challenged by the other party to the partition suit or even by any other member of the family and, therefore, the defendant tenant - M/s Jain Brothers even cannot call the same into question. The attornment on the basis of such partition by which the suit shop having fallen in the share of plaintiff Madan Lal was, therefore, automatic and he having served the notice for terminating the tenancy for non-payment of rent & bona fide need of the shop for the landlord and upon valid termination of such tenancy, he could very well file the present suit for eviction, which in the opinion of this Court was rightly decreed by the learned trial court. The appellate court has grossly erred in reversing the same by confusing the status of the present plaintiff-appellant as if the appellate court was seized of the challenge to the partition decree itself. The appellate court has grossly erred in reversing the same by confusing the status of the present plaintiff-appellant as if the appellate court was seized of the challenge to the partition decree itself. A decree by itself was admissible in evidence even without the same being registered or stamped in accordance with the provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908 in view of the provisions of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act. The matter is, thus, covered by the aforesaid decision of Supreme Court in Som Dev v. Rati Ram case (supra) and the eviction decree passed by the learned trial court, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the question of law deserves to be answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and it is so answered that the first appellate court has erred in holding that the decree of partition on the basis of compromise was required to be duly stamped and registered and in the absence thereof, the same was not admissible in evidence. 12. Accordingly, the present second appeal of the plaintiff is allowed. The judgment & decree of the first appellate court dated 26/11/2010 is set aside and the eviction decree passed by the learned trial court on 12/8/2009 is upheld. 13. The defendant-tenant-M/s Jain Brothers shall hand over the peaceful & vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff appellant or the new landlord Sanjay Kumar Shah within a period of six months from today i.e. on or before 1st September, 2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 2,000/- per month from March, 2015 before 15th of next month either to appellant-landlord directly or in his Bank account, details of which may be supplied by the appellant plaintiff or the new landlord, till vacant possession is handed over and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of six months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The respondent defendant- tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff within two months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The respondent defendant- tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff within two months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The respondent-tenant or person in possession shall also further not sublet, assign or part with the possession of the suit premises or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and the same would be treated as void. The respondent-defendant-tenant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop is not handed over to the appellant plaintiff or the new landlord within a period of six months from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the appellant plaintiff or the new landlord shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and the courts below forthwith.Appeal allowed. *******