JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the house in question was taken on rent by father of the petitioners from one Smt. Shanti Devi-landlady. After death of their father, petitioners inherited the tenancy. In the year 2002, S.C.C. Suit No. 45 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiff-respondents for payment of rent and eviction, which was decreed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Jhansi in favour of the plaintiff-respondents vide judgment and order dated 24.7.2018. Against the said judgment, Revision No. 41 of 2018 was filed by petitioner-defendants, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 27.11.2019 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Jhansi.

3. The basic argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that earlier a sale deed was drafted and executed by husband of respondent plaintiff no. 1 in the year 1995, but the same was not registered. Ultimately, for registration of said sale deed, Case No. 341 of 2000 (Om Prakash Sahu Vs. Vinod Kumar Seth) was filed for mandatory injunction. The said suit was allowed and sale deed was registered on 25.6.2011. He next submitted that in the plaint rent was claimed by the plaintiff-respondents w.e.f. 3.7.2009 to 13.6.2012. He further submitted that as the sale deed was registered on 25.6.2011, therefore, prior to that, the plaintiff-respondents were not entitled 2 to recover the rent and suit was not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the plaintiff-respondents were never the landlord of the petitioners. In fact Smt. Shanti Devi was the landlady of the house in question from whom tenancy was obtained by father of the petitioners, therefore, the suit is not maintainable.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. Section 17 provides the list of documents of which registration is compulsory. Section 49 provides the effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered and according to Section 49(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, on the basis of unregistered document, no right can be created.

6. He has further placed reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another Vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others, 2015 LawSuit(SC) 998 which interpreted the Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and provides that unregistered document cannot be admissible in evidence. Paragraphs 15, 17 and 18 of the said judgment are quoted below:-

“15. Section 17(1) (b) of the Registration Act mandates that any document which has the effect of creating and taking away the rights in respect of an immovable property must be registered and Section 49 of the Act imposes bar on the admissibility of an unregistered document and deals with the documents that are required to be registered u/s 17 of the Act.

17. It is well settled that the nomenclature given to the document is not decisive factor but the nature and substance of the transaction has to be determined with reference to the terms of the documents and that the admissibility of a document is entirely dependent upon the recitals contained in that document but not on the basis of the pleadings set up by the party who seeks to introduce the document in question. A thorough reading of both Exhibits B-21 and B-22 makes it very clear that there is relinquishment of right in respect of immovable property through a document which is compulsorily registerable document and if the same is not registered, becomes an inadmissible document as envisaged under Section 49 of the Registration Act. Hence, Exhibits B-21 and B-22 are the documents which squarely fall within the ambit of section 17 (i) (b) of the Registration Act and hence are compulsorily registerable documents and the s