Prem Singh and Others vs Amrit Lal and Others

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—This Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants-appellants is arising out of the judgment dated 05.05.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer in Civil Appeal Decree No. 08/2008 "Amrit Lal and Ors. v. Prem Singh and Ors." by which, the learned District Judge had allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-Amrit Lal and Ors. and set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaisalmer by which, he dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of due rent and eviction of the defendants from the house in question situated at Ward No. 3, Malan Pada (Goda Pada), Jaisalmer.

The present appeal has been filed by the defendants-tenants against the order dated 05.05.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer allowing the Appeal No. 08/2008 filed by the plaintiffs-landlords against the order dated 30.05.2008 passed by the learned Trial Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaisalmer, who dismissed the suit but the learned Appellate Court on appeal held that the rent note in question was not a lease deed executed in favour of the tenants requiring any registration under the provisions of the Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The relevant findings of the learned Appellate Court are quoted herein below for ready reference:--

The learned counsel Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Narendra Thanvi appearing for the appellants-defendants relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kishore Chand Vs. Dharam Pal, AIR 1968 P&H 385 : (1967) 1 ILR (P&H) 838 and submitted that a rent note transferring leasehold rights in the demised premises to the lessee to be enjoyed by him for as long a time as he continued to pay the rent represents demise of the premises indefinitely subject only to the lease continuing to pay the rent and if such transfer of rights under the rent note exceeding one year, the same is required to be registered under Section 17 (1)(d) of the Registration Act.

Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Prateek Surana on behalf of Mr. L.D. Khatri appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs relied upon a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Shyam Bihari Gupta Vs. The Rent Tribunal and Others, (2007) 1 RLW 262 and submitted that a rent note unilaterally signed by the tenant, while creating tenancy in his favour by the landlord does not require any registration, as it is a simpliciter a rent note and, therefore, the procedure provided under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act would not apply to such cases and in view of this, the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the Rent Note was admissible in evidence to establish the landlord-tenant relationship and the present appeal filed by the appellants-defendants-tenants deserves to be dismissed.

On 26.07.2011, while issuing the notices in this appeal, a coordinate Bench of this Court had stayed the further proceedings in Civil Original Suit No. 90/1995 (64/1991) pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaisalmer and the matter has unnecessarily remained pending here for four years delaying the further proceedings in the eviction suit filed by the plaintiffs-landlords under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgment/order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present misc. appeal filed by the defendants-appellants-tenant does not have any merit as the same is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court, referred above, in the case of Shyam Bihari Gupta (Dr.) v. The Rent Tribunal, Udaipur and Ors.(supra). A brief extract from the above said judgment is quoted herein below for ready reference:--

"(8). 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."

As against the aforesaid judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court, the judgment of Punjab and Haryana relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants-tenants is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that no specific period is mentioned in the rent note executed on 10.01.1980 by the defendants-tenants to create monthly tenancy, as admitted by him in the said rent note. This rent note cannot be said to be falling within the definition of lease deed for indefinite period under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 requiring registration, as held by the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kishore Chand (supra). This Court in the case of Shyam Bihari Gupta (Dr.) (supra) has held that such document is still admissible in evidence and, therefore, the learned Appellate Court has rightly remanded the matter to the learned Trial Court for fresh decision, after allowing the plaintiffs to produce their evidence. The order dated 05.05.2011 passed by the learned Appellate Court cannot be said to be suffering from any error and, therefore, this misc. appeal filed on behalf of the defendants-tenants is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs since this appeal has delayed the proceedings.

Accordingly and in view of the above, this misc. appeal filed by the defendants-appellants-Prem Singh S/o. late Mangi Lal and Ors. is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only] to be paid to the plaintiffs. A copy of this order be sent to the Court below and to the parties concerned forthwith.