Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. B. MEHROTRA
RAJENDRA KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE, JAUNPUR - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 1224 Of 1990
Decided On : 05/02/1995
RENT NOTE - REGISTRATION - SECTION 17(1)(B) REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - ADMISSIBILITY OF RENT NOTE IN EVIDENCE - EFFECT OF NON-REGISTRATION - ESTOPPEL - SECTION 116 EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of defendants from a disputed shop, alleging that they were tenants and had not paid rent since 1973. Defendants contested the suit, claiming they were tenants of someone else and that the rent note relied upon by the plaintiff was not registered and therefore inadmissible in evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and appellate court both found that the defendants were tenants of the plaintiff and had not paid rent despite notice of demand. The courts also held that the rent note was admissible in evidence, even though it was not registered, as it was not a bilateral document and did not come within the definition of a contract requiring compulsory registration. The courts further held that the defendants were estopped from denying the plaintiff's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, as they had been paying rent to the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the rent note was compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, and therefore inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. 2. Whether the defendants were estopped from denying the plaintiff's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the rent note was not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, as it was not a bilateral document and did not come within the definition of a contract requiring compulsory registration. 2. The court held that the defendants were estopped from denying the plaintiff's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, as they had been paying rent to the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the judgment of the lower court did not suffer from any legal infirmity and that the defendants were estopped from denying the plaintiff's title.
( 1 ) FOR the decision of the writ petition, the essential facts are as underjwala Prasad Plaintiff instituted Small Cause Suit No. 2 of 79 in the Court of J. S. C. C. (Civil Judge) against Raj Kumar and 10 other defendants and alleged in the suit that the disputed shop along with Kothari described at the foot of the plaint was given on rent to defendant No: l and Vishwanath for Rs. 30. 00per month and in that connection the defendant No. 1 and Vishwanath executed rent deed in plaintiffs favour on Ist March, 1970. It was also alleged that after the death of Vishwanath his legal representative became the tenant of the said shop. It was also alleged that on the demand of rent from 1/07/1973 to 31/01/1975 at the rate of Rs. 40. 00 per month, the defendant did not pay the same even despite repeated demand, on that basis plaintiff does not want to continue the defendants as tenants, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of defendants by notice and the plaintiff prayed for the relief that the plaintiff be put in possession of this disputed shop by evicting the defendants also demanding the decree of mandatory nature in plaintiffs favour.
( 2 ) THE defendants contested the aforesaidsuit and alleged that the defendant No. 1 and father of the remaining defendants has taken on rent the aforesaid shop initially from Smt. Chhabriaji widow of Gokul Prasad at the rate of Rs. 18. 00 per month, 8 or 10 years ago. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant.
( 3 ) THE Judge Small Causes Court by order dated 23. 4. 1975 directed that Judge Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case accordingly the plaint was returned. The plaintiff filed the plaint in the Court of Munsif, Jaunpur along with the said order on the regular side. On 13-12-1975 Munsif, Jaunpur ordered that the suit is cognizable only by Small Causes Court and the said suit is not cognizable in Munsif Court on regular side. Accordingly it was directed that plaint be returned to be filed before competent Court. Consequently, the plaintiff again filed the plaint on 4-12-1979 in the Court of Small Causes Court. On 14-10-1987, the plaintiffs suit was decreed against the defendants by the Judge Small Cause Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendants preferred revision in the Court of District Judge Jaunpur. District Judge, Jaunpur by judgment dated 22-12-1989 dismissed the revision of defendants. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present writ petition was filed by defendant Rajendra Prasad, the plaintiff has been arrayed as Respondent No. 3 to the writ petition. The other legal representative of original tenant Vishwanath have been arrayed respondents 5 to 12 to this writ petition.
( 4 ) I heard the learned counsel for the parties at length in support and the opposition of the writ, petition in order. Sri D. S. M. Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two points in support of the writ. 1. If the Small Cause Court returned the plaint with the direction that the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit, that again on return of the plaint by Munsif Court, the Court of Small Cause had no jurisdiction to hear, again the same suit. The first order of Judge Small Cause Court had attained finality between the parties and against the tenor of that judgment the decree passed by the Small Cause Court is without jurisdiction. 2. The so called rent note allegedly executed on 1/03/1970 as set out by defendant was not a registered document. Accordingly the admission of the said rent note in evidence by the appellate Court is against law and liable to be set aside. So far as the first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned. It is a settled principle of law that the wrong decision on the point of jurisdiction does not attract the principle of res judicata between the parties.
( 5 ) IN this way the only point worthy of consideration in this writ is whether the rent no
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
