The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered lease deed for a period not exceeding 11 months is admissible in evidence, and a tenant is estopped from challenging the title of the landlord.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral). - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present second appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 28th November, 2019, passed by the ld. ADJ-04, East District, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi, by which the appeal of the tenant against the order dated 1st June, 2019 passed by the ld. Civil Judge, East, has been dismissed.

3. The dispute arises out a civil suit bearing Suit No. 1064/18 titled Jyoti Gandhi and Ors. v. Karan Dem, which was filed by the Respondents herein/ Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) -Smt. Jyoti Gandhi, Ruchi Arya and Riya Chawla, against their tenant -Mr. Karan Dem, who is the Appellant herein/Defendant (hereinafter, “Defendant”) on the ground that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of property bearing Flat No. 153-B, Third Floor, South Anarkali, Delhi.

4. The case of the Plaintiffs in the suit was that a rent agreement was executed on 2nd January, 2016, by which the property in question was given out on rent, for a monthly rental amount of Rs. 17,000/- to the Defendant. According to the Plaintiffs, the tenant did not pay the regular rent amounts, and in any case, vide notice dated 20th September, 2018, the tenancy was terminated by the Plaintiffs. A reply was also sent to the said notice by the Defendant- tenant, however, he did not agree to vacate the property. The same led to the filing of a suit for recovery of possession and recovery of rent/damages before the Trial Court. The prayers in the plaint in Suit No. 1064/18 are as under:

“A. Pass a decree of recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of suit property/Flat bearing No.-153-B, IIIrd Floor, Opposite Punjabi Dhaba, South Anarkali Extn. Delhi, which is specifically shown in red colour in the annexed site plan.

B. Pass a decree of recovery of rent @ Rs.17000/- per month since July, 2018 to October, 2018 (i.e. 17000 x 4 = 68000).

C. Pass decree of damages @ Rs. 500/- per day w.e.f, 1/10/2018 till vacation of the suit property.

C. Pass any other or further order as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.”

5. In response to the plaint, written statement was filed by the tenant. Post the filing of the said written statement, the learned Civil Judge, vide order dated 1st June, 2019, held that there are clear admissions by the tenant in its written statement, and thus the suit was decreed by invoking Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The said judgment of the Civil Judge, has been upheld in appeal by the ld. ADJ vide the impugned order dated 28th November 2019.

6. Mr. Sharma, ld. counsel for the Defendant, has entered appearance today and has made his submissions. Mr. Suresh Agarwal and Mr. Rai have appeared for the Plaintiffs. Both the ld. counsels have been heard.

7. Mr. Sharma appearing for the Defendant- tenant, submits that the tenant’s father is unwell and that is the reason why he could not appear on the previous occasion. He submits that the questions of law that arise in the present second appeal, are –

- that the rent Agreement which has been relied upon by the Plaintiffs before the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, is an unregistered Agreement, and no stamp duty has been paid in respect thereof. Thus, according to ld. Counsel, the rent Agreement cannot be relied upon by the Plaintiffs;

- that the suit for possession ought to have been properly valued, and proper court fee has also not been deposited by the Plaintiffs;

- that the ownership and title of the Plaintiffs is also disputed. and the Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to rely upon unregistered documents in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act to claim recovery of possession.

8. On behalf of the Plaintiffs, it is submitted by both the ld. Counsels as under:

- that the tenant has admitted the fact that he had taken the premises on rent from the Plaintiffs;

- that he has also admitted that he was paying rent to the Plaintiffs amounting to Rs.17,000/