Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard counsel for the plaintiff-revisionists Sri KM Garg and Sri Faneesh Mishra for the defendant-opposite party.

2. The instant revision is directed against the judgement and decree dated 26.11.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Bijnor in SCC Suit No. 11 of 2009, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-revisionists (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction against the defendant-opposite party (for short ‘the defendant’), has been dismissed.

3. The suit was filed with the allegation that the defendant was tenant in a shop which was a construction of the year 1992, assessed for the first time on 1.1.1994 and consequently, U.P. Act XIII of 1972 (for short ‘the Act’) was not applicable to it. The rent at the rate of Rs. 1700/- per month was due from January 2009 and taxes since the year 2008-09. The tenancy of the defendant was terminated by a notice dated 29.1.2009 but since he failed to vacate, therefore, the suit was instituted.

4. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement in which he pleaded that he had given an advance of Rs. 80,000/- to Dev Dutt Dixit, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs; that the shop was constructed in the year 1983; that the Act was fully applicable; that initially the shop was occupied by Deo Dutt and his son Manoj Deo for doing business of selling medicines but after some time it was let out to him; that a rent agreement was executed between them laying down the terms and conditions of the tenancy; that notice dated 29.1.2009 was given on incorrect allegations; that the notice is void and illegal and does not result in termination of his tenancy.

5. The trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the submissions made by them framed four points of determination namely :

1. Whether the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable?

2. Whether the plaintiffs have terminated the tenancy of defendant by valid notice?

3. Whether the defendant has been defaulter in payment of rent?

6. While deciding the first point, the trial Court placing reliance on the first assessment and other documentary evidence held that the Act was not applicable to the shop in dispute. While deciding the second point relating to validity of notice, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs had brought on record a rent agreement dated 15.9.1992 and whereunder the parties had agreed to the tenancy being terminated by a six months’ notice after the entire advance amount is adjusted. Although the rent note is unregistered but since it was filed by the plaintiffs themselves, therefore the terms and conditions stipulated therein are binding upon them. Consequently, thirty days notice given by the plaintiffs, was invalid and did not result in determining the tenancy. On issue relating to default, it was held that the defendant was not defaulter rather he had paid rent in advance as mentioned in the rent note, paper No. C-83. Accordingly, the suit has been dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-revisionists submitted that the rent agreement, though filed by the plaintiffs, was an unregistered document. It purported to create a lease for a period exceeding one year. It is submitted that in the absence of lease deed being registered, it was invalid under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and cannot be read in evidence in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act, except for collateral purpose of ascertaining the nature of possession of the defendant. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the following judgments :

Jai Narain Dass and another v. Smt. Zubeda Khatoon, (AIR 1972 Allahabad 494)

Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo v. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo and others, (AIR 1981 SC 1937)

Satish Chand Makhan and others v. Govardhan Das Byas and others, (1984 (1) ARC 515)

Punjab National Bank v. Ganga Narain Kapur, (AIR 1994 All. 221)

Punjab National Bank v. VIIIth Additional Distr