Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saral Srivastava, J.
Suresh Kumar Sharma And Others - Appellant
Vs.
M/s Khanna Automobiles And Others - Respondents
Civil Revision No. 205 of 2009
Decided On : 08-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs' claim for eviction based on ownership and tenancy. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. defendants contest tenancy terms and claim rights under prior agreements. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. trial court's findings on tenancy and registration requirements. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. plaintiffs argue for registration based on the nature of the lease. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. defendants defend the trial court's conclusions on registration. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. court examines the compromise deed and its implications. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. court's assessment of new rights arising from the compromise. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 8. compromise requires registration as it creates new rights. (Para 36 , 37) |
| 9. distinction with b.p. sinha case and its inapplicability. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45) |
| 10. final ruling on the necessity of registration. (Para 46) |
| 11. final judgment and order on the revision. (Para 47) |
JUDGMENT :
Saral Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri D.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties.
2. The revisionists are the plaintiffs in S.C.C. Suit No.63 of 2008 and have preferred the present Revision against the judgement and order dated 08.04.2009 passed by the District Judge/Judge, Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad whereby he has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/revisionists.
3. For the convenience, the revisionists are referred to as 'plaintiffs' and respondents are referred to as 'defendants'.
4. The plaintiffs instituted S.C.C. Suit No.63 of 2008 for eviction of the defendants from Shop No.3 situated at Ground Floor Building, Nagar Nigam No.537-A, Purva Ismail Khan being constructed on G.D.A. Plot No.56, Ambedkar Road, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘shop’).
5. The plaintiffs’ case is that the defendants are the tenants of the shop, of which plaintiffs’ mother was the owner, and after her death on 24.05.2008, the plaintiffs being legal heirs became the owner of the shop.
6. It is stated that in S.C.C. Suit No.33 of 2003, a compromise was entered into between the parties on 01.10.2008 in which it was agreed that the rent of the shop would be Rs.4200/-. The defendants paid the rent at the rate of Rs.4200/- for the month of October, 2008 under the compromise.
7. It is further stated that the defendants had deposited Rs.3,50,000/- with the mother of the plaintiffs as a security, which the plaintiffs are liable to return to the defendants at the time of vacation of the shop by the defendants.
8. Further case of the plaintiffs was that the building in which the shop is situated was constructed in the year 1988, and the First Assessment of the shop was done on 01.04.1989, and since the rent of the shop was more than Rs.2000/-, therefore, the provision of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable, and the plaintiffs can terminate the tenancy of defendants at ‘will’. Accordingly, the plaintiffs served a notice dated 01.11.2008 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act by registered post to the defendants terminating the tenancy of the defendants which notice was served upon the defendants on 05.11.2008
9. Further case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants are liable to pay rent of Rs.4900/- for the period from 01.11.2008 to 05.12.2008 at the rate of Rs.4200/- per month. Accordingly, the plaintiffs prayed for a decree of eviction alongwith the damages and other relief against the defendants.
10. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement contending inter-alia that the defendants were tenants of mother of the plaintiffs namely, Late Bimla Devi at the rate of Rs.1130/- per month. It is further stated that by mutual agreement, it has been agreed that the rent is to be increased by 10% in every three years and the entire rent was paid by the defendants during the lifetime of Late
Compromise deeds creating new rights in property require registration under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 to be enforceable.
A compromise decree recognizing pre-existing tenancy rights does not require registration, upholding the right to execute it based on agreed terms under the Civil Procedure Code.
A compromise decree creating new rights in immovable property requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act if it establishes rights for the first time.
(1) Family settlement only declares rights which are already possessed by parties. An aggrieved person can seek enforcement of family settlement in a suit for declaration wherein family members have ....
A compromise decree creating a fresh tenancy must comply with statutory provisions governing eviction proceedings; execution of such a decree without adherence to the law is impermissible.
No eviction can be ordered unless ground seeking eviction is made out, even if parties had entered into a compromise and that the invalidity on that count can even be raised in execution.
The executing court affirmed that a valid compromise decree must be executed regardless of the landlords' objections, emphasizing the importance of compliance with contractual obligations.
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
