Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JAYANT NATH, J.
M/s Karan & Co. - Petitioner
Versus
S.K. Gupta - Respondent
CM(M) No. 1183 of 2015 & CM No. 29267 of 2015
Decided On : 22-02-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Mr. Rajiv Diwan, Mr. Shashwat V. Dubey
For the Respondent: Mr. C.P. Vig
The admissibility of an unregistered lease deed for collateral purpose and its relevance in determining the purpose of letting.
Headnote:
Handwriting Expert - Lease Deed Examination - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(a), (d), (h), (j) - Section 49 of the Registration Act - The court discussed the admissibility of an unregistered lease deed for collateral purpose and its relevance in determining the purpose of letting. It relied on the judgment of M/s. Keshav Metal Works & Anr. vs. Sh.Jitender Kumar Verma, 1994 (28) DRJ 206, and concluded that the terms of an unregistered agreement can be looked into to find out the purpose of letting because it is only a collateral purpose. The court also distinguished the case of K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Development Consultant Ltd., 2008 (8) SCC 564, and emphasized the importance of the specific terms of the lease agreement in question.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to impugn the dismissal of their application under Section 151 CPC seeking examination of a handwriting expert in respect of an unregistered lease deed. The lease deed was related to a residential flat on disputed property.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petitioner to examine a handwriting expert, concluding that the impugned order suffered from material errors and that the reasoning of the trial court to disallow a handwriting expert was improper.
Issues: Admissibility of unregistered lease deed for collateral purpose, relevance in determining the purpose of letting, and the permission to examine a handwriting expert.
Ratio Decidendi: The terms of an unregistered agreement can be looked into to find out the purpose of letting because it is only a collateral purpose. The specific terms of the lease agreement in question are important and can be admissible for determining the purpose of letting.
Final Decision: The present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is allowed to examine a handwriting expert as prayed for in their application under Section 151 CPC.
Jayant Nath, J.
1. By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 16.10.2015 by which an application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC seeking examination of handwriting expert in respect of the lease deed dated 18.11.1986 was dismissed.
2. The respondent has filed the present petition under Section 14(1) (a), (d), (h) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in respect of a residential flat on the first floor alleged to be on the property bearing No. 84, Tolstoy Lane, Janpath, New Delhi. The municipal number of the premises is disputed by the petitioner who states that the number of the premises is 82/12, Tolstoy Lane, Janpath, New Delhi.
3. The evidence of the respondent is over. The petitioner had filed a list of witnesses which included the handwriting expert. For the purpose of leading evidence, the petitioner sought permission to get examined the signatures of Smt. Kailash Gupa, Mr. Devi Charan Gupta and Mr. S.K. Gupta, the first two being the predecessors of the respondent on the original lease deed dated 18.11.1986 from the same handing writing expert. The application was dismissed by the impugned order.
4. The trial court held that lease deed dated 18.11.1986 is unregistered lease deed and can be looked into only for collateral purpose and that collateral purpose cannot be interpreted to include therein the terms and conditions by which parties are related to each other. It also relied upon Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and concluded that there was no need for the petitioner to examine handwriting expert and that it is only an attempt to delay the matter.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the lease deed dated 18.11.1986 is extremely important for the defence of the petitioner as the lease deed states that the property was let out for commercial purpose. He further submits that the fact that it was let out for residential or commercial purpose can be gone into for collateral purpose and Section 49 of the Registration Act would not be a bar on the same. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Keshav Metal Works & Anr. vs. Sh.Jitender Kumar Verma, 1994 (28) DRJ 206.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the submission which are now sought to be raised before this court have not been raised before the trial court.
8. Section 49 of the Registration Act reads as follows:-
“49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.- No document required by section 17 1[or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to be registered shall-
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:
Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877) 55, 56 [***] or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.”
9. This court in the case of M/s. Keshav Metal Works & Anr. vs. Sh.Jitender Kumar Verma (supra) held as follows:-
“24. Now, so far as merits are concerned, the learned Addl. Rent Controller took note of the evidence adduced before her and came to the conclusion that premises in question was let for residential purpose. Even otherwise when a tenant uses the premises for receiving his business Dak or correspondence it would not make the use as commercial. The Addl. Rent Controller rightly concluded that merely because the tenant had given his address for correspondence purpose in Sales Tax Department and/or
