The main legal point established in the judgment is that the non-registration of a document does not prevent the establishment of a landlord-tenant relationship, and unregistered documents can be used for collateral purposes.

1. Regular Civil Suit No.63 of 1986 filed for eviction and possession of the suit property from the tenant on the basis of the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was dismissed by the Trial Court on 23-7-1993. The plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.172 of 1993, which has been allowed by the learned Joint District Judge, Amravati, on 7-11-2001 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and granting a decree for eviction and possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff along with the arrears of Rs.810/- and ordering an enquiry under Order XX, Rule 10(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure for determination of the future mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit till the delivery of the possession. Hence, the original defendant No.2 is before this Court in this second appeal.

2. The Trial Court recorded a finding that the tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit property created on 16-4-1984 has not been proved by the plaintiff, so also the claim regarding arrears of rent of Rs.810/- for the period from 15-7-1985 to 14-4-1986. The lower Appellate Court has reversed this finding and it is held that the plaintiff has established the relationship of “Landlord and Tenant” between him and the defendant No.1, and the tenancy was validly terminated, and hence the decree for possession as well as for arrears of rent of Rs.810/- has been passed.

3. This Court framed the following substantial questions of law while admitting this second appeal on 7-7-2015 :

“1. Whether the document styled as agreement of lease (Ex.50) is sufficient to hold that the present appellant surrendered his tenancy and therefor his father i.e. original defendant No.1 became tenant of suit property.

2. Whether Ex.50 was inadmissible in evidence.

3. Whether evidence of P.W.2 – Govindrao Dharam can be relied upon to hold that the agreement of lease at Ex.50 is proved.”

4. The plaintiff came up before the Trial Court with the case that an agreement was entered into for creation of monthly tenancy between him and the defendant No.1 Ramkisan Motidas Bairagi on 16-4-1984 on rent of Rs.90/- per month. The defendant No.1 failed to make the payment of rent for the period of nine months from 15-7-1985 to 14-4-1986 at the rate of Rs.90/- per month, and hence by issuing the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 26-2-1986, the tenancy of the defendant No.1 was terminated. The suit was filed on 16-4-1986. The defendant No.2 Ganesh Bairagi is the son of the defendant No.1, and as per the averment made in the plaint, he was joined as the party to avoid the further complications.

5. The defendant No.2 filed his written on 30-10-1986 denying the case of the plaintiff and taking the stand that he is the tenant and in possession of the suit property since the year 1977 on the monthly rent of Rs.60/- (Rs.30/- to be paid towards rent and Rs.30/- to be paid towards supply of electricity and water). The defendant No.2 came up with the stand in one place in his written statement that since last two years, he is paying the rent of Rs.90/- per month, and in another place, that from the month of February 1986, he is compelled to pay the rent of Rs.90/-, as the water and electricity supply to the premises was stopped. However, the money order sent came back to him.

6. The defendant No.1, who is the father of the defendant No.2, filed his written statement on 28-11-1986 denying the averments made in the plaint and also the tenancy, as was alleged by the plaintiff. It was the specific stand taken by the defendant No.1 in the written statement that it is the defendant No.2, who is the tenant in respect of the suit property and the defendant No.1 is not at all concerned with it.

7. The original plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and his daug