Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1627 (RAJ)

LEELA DEVI v. KAMLA

2017-07-24

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. 1. The prayer in the present petition is to set aside the order dated 20.04.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan vide which the application filed by the petitioner - non-applicant under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 read with Section 35 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1961 was dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/-. 2. While praying for keeping the Rent Deed (Ex.3) in part "D" of the record of the File by allowing the application under Section 21 of the Act after setting aside the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two fold arguments: 3. Firstly, the Rent Deed is both unregistered and unstamped. Hence, the same cannot be taken into consideration and is liable to be kept in part "D" of the record of the File. Secondly, as per the FSL report, the signatures on the Rent Deed (Ex.3) is forged which shows that the Rent Deed was not executed by the petitioner. Hence, the said Rent Deed is not admissible. Heard. section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as under: "Leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent". 4. A reading of the same shows that the same does not apply in case the lease or the Rent Deed is of a period less than a year. In the present case, the Rent Deed required the rent to be paid every month, although it is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the same was for a period of less than a year. If it is so, then too, this can only be ascertained during the trial and cannot be simply ignored or put in part "D" of the record of the File at the outset. 5. Moreover, it is not disputed that the Rent Deed (Ex.3) is already an exhibited document on which the Rent Tribunal and the High Court have already passed certain orders. The respondent has already examined the petitioner's witnesses before the Rent Tribunal. The witness of the petitioner Amar Singh has already been examined and cross-examined. He is the witness who verified that the stamp was purchased by him. The petitioner never objected to the admissibility of the said document Rent Deed (Ex.3) during the cross-examination. 6. The respondent has already examined the petitioner's witnesses before the Rent Tribunal. The witness of the petitioner Amar Singh has already been examined and cross-examined. He is the witness who verified that the stamp was purchased by him. The petitioner never objected to the admissibility of the said document Rent Deed (Ex.3) during the cross-examination. 6. The argument that the Rent Deed was not properly stamped too does not help. The document Rent Deed (Ex.3) has already been admitted as Ex.3. As stated above, the witnesses related to the said document have been examined and cross-examined. As per Section 40 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, an instrument that has been admitted in evidence, cannot be questioned at later stage on the ground that it has not been duly registered except as provided in Section 71 of the Act. 7. In view of the above, this Court finds no fault with the order impugned dated 20.04.2017 dismissing the application of the petitioner - non-applicant under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 9. Taking into account that the matter is fixed for recording the evidence of the petitioner-tenant since the year 2015 but no evidence has been produced by him since then, the learned Rent Tribunal shall dispose of the Rent Petition which is otherwise pending since the year 2011 as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the next date of hearing.