Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2549 (RAJ)

Ramavtar v. Rajendra Kumar

2019-09-23

ABHAY CHATURVEDI

body2019
ORDER : Abhay Chaturvedi, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Merta whereby, the application submitted by the petitioner under Sections 34, 35, 39(1) and 42 of The Rajasthan Stamp Act and Sections 107 and 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and Sections 17 & 39 of the Registration Act read with Order 13 Rule 3 CPC was dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a Civil Suit for arrears of rent, recovery of possession and mesne profit contending inter alia, that the plaintiff rented his shop to the defendant-petitioner on 01.05.2013 with rent of Rs. 1800/- per month. The defendant-petitioner after 30.06.2014 onwards did not pay the rent. The plaintiff served a registered notice for terminating the tenancy of the defendant but the tenant did not vacate the suit premises. Therefore, the suit was filed for eviction of the defendant and for recovery of the due rent amount. 3. The petitioner-defendant filed written statement and submitted that the shop was not taken on rent from the plaintiff-respondent but the same was taken on rent from the plaintiff's mother Smt. Badam Kanwar on 28.07.1992 and Rs. 30,000/- were paid to her as security deposit. It was also mentioned that the defendant had made all the payment of rent. 4. An application was submitted by the petitioner with the averment that the plaintiff has relied upon the lease deed dated 01.05.2013 which was executed on the stamp paper of Rs. 100/-. The lease deed contained the condition that there will be enhancement of 15% of rent after every three years and as such the shop was let out for a period of more than one year with condition to enhance 15% rent after every three year. Thus, the document comes under the definition of lease which requires compulsorily registration and the document which is not registered is not admissible in evidence. Hence, the prayer was made that since the lease deed in question is not properly stamped, therefore, the same may be sent to Collector (Stamps) for the purpose of impounding. The plaintiff-respondent did not choose to file reply to the application. 5. The trial Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the application vide order dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure-6). Hence, this writ petition is filed. The plaintiff-respondent did not choose to file reply to the application. 5. The trial Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the application vide order dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure-6). Hence, this writ petition is filed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and pursed the material available on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant urged that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the settled propositions of law, which is liable to be set aside. He further averred that the trial Court has not considered the important aspect of the matter that the document has to be read independently and the trial Court without considering the nature of the document (Annexure-5) came to the conclusion that registration is not required and without any basis held that the stamp duty affixed on the document is sufficient. As per the requirement of law, registration was necessary and without registration of the document, the same cannot be admissible in evidence. In support of his contentions learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Banwarilal Sharma Vs. Ram Swaroop reported in AIR 1974 Rajasthan 178 and Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in 2009 DNJ (SC) 364. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner implored this Court to accept the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the trial Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and pursued the material available on record. 10. A perusal of the rent note dated 01.05.2013 (Annexure-5) shows that it was executed by the petitioner Ramavatar in favour of landlord Rajendra Kumar, whereby the shop situated at Meera Marg, Merta was taken on rent @ 1800/- per month. It was also agreed that 15% of the rent shall be enhanced after every three years. This rent note was signed only by the petitioner and the respondent-landlord had not signed the document and as such the rent note (Annexure-5) is a unilateral agreement and not bilateral on which rent was agreed to be paid on monthly basis. Thus, this agreement is rent note simplicitor and can not be termed as lease deed as alleged by the petitioner. This Court in the case of Shyam Bihari Gupta (Dr.) Vs. Rent Tribunal, Udaipur & Ors. reported in 2007 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1353 observed in para 7 as under: "7. Thus, this agreement is rent note simplicitor and can not be termed as lease deed as alleged by the petitioner. This Court in the case of Shyam Bihari Gupta (Dr.) Vs. Rent Tribunal, Udaipur & Ors. reported in 2007 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1353 observed in para 7 as under: "7. The objection raised against the document in question is fundamentally incorrect because the said document is not a lease of immovable property for any term. The eviction petition states that the premises were delivered in possession under oral agreement on a rent of Rs. 300/- per month; and the tenant executed a rent note in relation to the terms of tenancy. The document in question itself states (vide paragraph-2) that the premises in question have been taken by the tenant from the landlord under an oral agreement and at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. The submission that Clause-14 of the document has not been read is not correct. The learned Tribunal has considered the said clause and has rightly observed the same to be relevant only towards the agreement for revision of rent. The document in question is a unilateral document signed only by the petitioner and not by the landlord and is not a lease deed but a rent note simpliciter, that too regarding terms of a monthly tenancy. The objection regarding its registration remains fundamentally baseless; and the Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in rejecting the application moved by the present petitioner." 11. The judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Banwarilal Sharma Vs. Ram Swaroop reported in AIR 1974 Rajasthan 178 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the present case as in that case the document was a bilateral agreement and on that basis, the Apex Court found the document to be lease deed. But, in the present case, as observed above only the petitioner signed the document, so it is a unilateral document stipulating the rent to be payable on monthly basis. Thus, referring to the judgment passed in the case of Shyam Bihari Gupta (supra) as document is a unilateral document which is considered to be a rent note simplicitor which requires no registration. The next judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Thus, referring to the judgment passed in the case of Shyam Bihari Gupta (supra) as document is a unilateral document which is considered to be a rent note simplicitor which requires no registration. The next judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in 2009 DNJ (SC) 364 is also not applicable in the facts of the present case as that matter relates to the sale deed which requires registration compulsorily. 12. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rent note is inadmissible in evidence as the same has not been registered, is not tenable. 13. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the rent note is not properly stamped is concerned, a perusal of the rent note (Annexure-5) shows that it is written on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to specify as to how the stamp duty is insufficient on the rent note. The Court below, after considering the point, has rightly come to the conclusion that the rent note is properly stamped. 14. As an upshot of the above discussion, this Court finds that the learned Court below had not committed any error whatsoever. Thus, no ground is made out to interfere in the order impugned. 15. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.