GUPTA, J.—The plaintiff, who claims to be the owner of the premises consisting of a room and a tin shed situated in C Scheme in the city of Jaipur, alleged that he had let out the premises to the defendant on April 1, 1957, on a monthly rent of Rs. 4/-and a rent-deed was executed in respect of this tenancy by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on April 1, 1957. As the defendant did not make payment of the rent from August 1, 1962, the plaintiff filed a suit on August 27, 1965, in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Jaipur City, for the recovery of Rs. 144/- as arrears of rent @ Rs. 4/-per month and Rs. 9/- as house tax, in all for Rs. 153/-.

2. The defendant resisted the suit and denied the execution of the alleged rent deed by him in favour of the plaintiff and also took the defence that the alleged rent-deed was an unregistered document and as such was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The Judge, Small Causes, Jaipur City, by his order dated March 3, 1966 held that the alleged rent-note was a simple Kirayanama and was admissible in evidence. Thereafter by his judgment dated April 13, 1968, the learned Judge held that the execution of the rent-deed Ex. 1 by the defendant was proved and holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was established from the aforesaid document and that the defendant was the plaintiffs tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 4/-, a decree for Rs. 144/- with costs, in respect of arrears of rent was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It was further decided that as no agreement was proved between the parties in respect of the payment of house tax, the suit for the recovery of house tax was not maintainable and as such the claim for the recovery of house-tax was disallowed.

3. The defendant filed a revision petition in this court against the decree passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Jaipur City and the finding of the trial court about the existence of the relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties was assailed on the ground that the said finding was based solely upon the so-called rent-deed Ex. 1, but that document was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the document Ex 1 was no doubt executed by the tenant applicant, but as it was signed by the plaintiff landlord also, in token of his acceptance thereof, it was a lease deed within the meaning of sec. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and as it was an unregistered document, it was not admissible in evidence and did not confer any right of interest. Although the matter in question was the subject matter of four decisions given by three learned Judges of this Court sitting singly, Bhargava, J., before whom the revision petition came up for hearing, thought that the matter was of considerable importance and required an authoritative decision by a Division Bench, made a reference to the Division Bench and it is in this way that the matter has come up before us.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the tenant-applicant before us that as the document Ex. 1 bears the signatures of both the tenant and the landlord it was a bilateral agreement of tenancy and under the second clause of sec. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, it required registration and in the absence thereof, the said document was inadmissible in evidence and no rights flowed from it. On the other hand it was contended by the learned counsel for the landlord opposite party that the document in question was essentially a unilateral one, which was executed by the tenant alone and it was only a Kirayanama (rent-note) or a Kabuliyat and mere signature of the landlord, even if it be in token of his acceptance of the terms of the rent-note could not be considered as execution of the said document by the plaintiff-landlord. He further submitted that the said rent-note was only for a period of 11 months and contained a stipulation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document