Vijaya Nagaraj vs Vokkaligara Sangha

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—1. The respondent in HRC No. 88/2015 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, has come up in this revision impugning the order dated 15.02.2016 in so far as it relates to the application filed by her under Order VIII Rule 1-A of CPC. The trial Court while allowing the said application in part, has refused to take on record the lease deed dated 01.08.2014 on the ground that it is inadmissible in evidence.

It is seen that the proceedings in HRC No. 88/2015 are initiated by the landlord, respondent herein, under Section 27(2)(a)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, seeking eviction of the tenant, petitioner herein, from the petition schedule property and for grant for damages on the premise that the tenant is continuing in the said property even after expiry of the lease period and as the landlord -Sangha required the petition property for the bona fide use and occupation of its members, it got issued legal notice dated 11.11.2013 terminating the lease in favour of the tenant with effect from 26.11.2013. Since the tenant failed to vacate the petition property, the landlord filed eviction petition for the aforesaid reliefs.

In the said proceedings, two applications were filed by the tenant: one under Order XI Rule 12 of CPC, seeking direction to the petitioner - landlord to produce certain documents said to be in its custody and another application under Order VIII Rule 1-A of CPC, seeking permission to produce certain documents, including lease deed dated 01.08.2014, which is wrongly referred to in the order impugned as executed on 28.07.2014, which is the date on which the stamp paper is secured by the tenant -Smt. K. Vijaya Nagaraj. The tenant sought for production of the said lease deed in support of her defence to the effect that she is continuing in possession of the petition property under the said lease deed executed by the General Secretary of the landlord - Sangha leasing the petition property in her favour for a period of thirty years from 01.08.2014 on a monthly rental of Rs. 1,866/-.

In the objections filed to the application of the tenant under Order VIII Rule 1-A of CPC, the landlord contended that the then General Secretary of the landlord -Sangha, who has affixed his signature to the lease deed dated 01.08.2014, had been removed by the Executive Committee of the Sangha. He had no authority to issue any lease deed for a period of 30 years without the written consent or resolution of the Executive Committee of the landlord. The said document with reference to lease period of more than one year is compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and besides that, it is required to be stamped as per Section 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The landlord contended that since the document is unstamped and unregistered, it is inadmissible in evidence and could not be relied upon by the tenant.

However, when the said application was taken up for consideration by the Court below, the tenant tried to urge that though the lease deed dated 01.08.2014 is compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, it could be relied upon by her for collateral purpose as provided in Section 49 of the said Act, though not to establish her tenancy rights, which she took as defence. Admittedly, the tenant has not filed any counter claim to the eviction petition. The trial Court, relying upon catena of decisions, which were cited before it, by its order dated 15.02.2016, has allowed the application filed by the tenant under Order VIII Rule 1-A of CPC, in part while declining to take the said lease deed on record. Being aggrieved by the same, the tenant has preferred this revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner -tenant as also respondent - landlord. On going through the grounds urged in this revision petition as well as the order impugned, it is clear that the stand taken by the landlord in the Court below is to the effect that after the expiry of lease period in the year 2010, there was no document executed in favour of the tenant permitting her to continue in the petition property on any term. Per contra, the defence on the part of the tenant in the Court below is to the effect that subsequently, on 01.08.2014, lease deed is executed by General Secretary of landlord in her favour permitting her to continue in possession of the petition property for a period of 30 years from 01.08.2014 on rental, which is at the rate of Rs. 1,866/- per month. Clause No. 11 of the said lease deed refers to increase of rent after expiry of thirty years from 01.08.2014 by 20% once in three years. However, the fact remains that the said document is neither registered as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 nor duly stamped under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Therefore, the trial Court has not accepted the plea raised by the tenant that the said document could be considered for collateral purpose and has declined to mark the said document.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner -tenant assailing the order impugned, has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Yellapu Uma Maheswari and others v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others reported in AIR (SCW)-2015-0-6184. The said judgment is not helpful to the tenant in the present case as the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment was dealing with a case arising out of a suit for partition. Since there was relinquishment of right in respect of immovable property through the documents, EXs.B21 and B22 sought to be marked by defendant No. 1 therein, which were unregistered and unstamped and which were compulsorily registerable, the Apex Court held that the same would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 17(i)(b) of the Registration Act and were inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the factum of partition between the parties. Further, the Apex Court has held that the said unregistered documents could be relied upon in a suit for partition for collateral purpose i.e., severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares, but not for the primary purpose i.e., division of joint properties by metes and bounds. It is also observed that an unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded.

In the instant case, the lease deed dated 01.08.2014 is sought to be relied upon by tenant for collateral purpose with reference to clause relating to monthly rent, which is agreed between the parties. Though she is not relying upon the said document to prove tenure of lease, the clause with reference to monthly rent cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited reported in , (2008) 8 SCC 564, wherein the Apex Court while discussing at length the meaning of "collateral purpose" has referred to its earlier judgments with reference to the right of the parties and has observed at para No. 34 as under:

"34. From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to hereinabove, it is evident that:--

A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.

Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.

A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration.

A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards.

If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose.

In our view, the particular clause in the lease agreement in question cannot be called a collateral purpose."

On going through the relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment, it is seen that the same is applicable to the case on hand on all fours and the trial Court was justified in declining to mark the lease deed dated 01.08.2014.

In that view of the matter, this Court find that no justifiable grounds are made out to consider the prayer in this revision petition filed by the tenant in HRC No. 88/2015 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.