Unregistered tenancy agreements exceeding one year are inadmissible in evidence; valid notice of eviction is established if default in rent payment is proven.

JUDGMENT :

ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Shailesh Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 3.

2. This writ petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assails the order dated 21.04.2025 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 5 of 1993 and order dated 14.08.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, 4, Chandausi, Sambhal in S.C.C. Revision No. 28 of 2013.

3. The case in brief is that petitioner along with respondent no. 5 had entered into an agreement with one Ashok Raj, the landlord on 13.08.1986. Shops on ground floor, first floor and second floor were constructed with investment being made by petitioner-tenant. Shop at first floor and second floor were let out to tenant and rent agreed was Rs.400/- which was to be deducted from the cost incurred in construction and renovation. On 11.07.1990, another agreement was executed between the landlord and tenant in respect of a shop situated on ground floor at monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. As there was default in payment of rent, respondent-landlord gave notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred as “the Act of 1882”) terminating the tenancy and vacating the premises in question. A S.C.C. Suit No. 5 of 1993 was filed when despite notice, arrears of rent from 10.09.1992 to 09.05.1993 was not paid along with house tax. The suit was contested by tenant and a written statement was filed wherein it was alleged that agreement dated 11.07.1990 provided that landlord cannot get the shop vacated as per Clause 3 of the agreement. The trial court framed following issues:-

4. Issue No. 1 was in regard to default having committed by tenant in payment of rent which was decided against tenant holding him to be in arrears, while Issue No. 2 in regard to service of notice under Section 106 of the Act of 1882 was also decided against defendant/tenant. The trial court while dealing with Issue No. 3 found that agreement dated 11.07.1990 was not registered thus could not be taken in evidence. The trial court decreed the suit for arrears of rent and eviction on 08.11.2013. Aggrieved by order of trial court, petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 28 of 2013 which was dismissed on the ground that co-tenant Sunil Kumar had filed S.C.C. Revision No. 27 of 2013 which has already been dismissed, thus, Revision No. 28 of 2013 was also dismissed.

5. The matter was carried to this Court through Matters under Article 227 No. 4713 of 2021. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 05.09.2024 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed in Revision No. 28 of 2013 and remanded back the matter to revisional court to decide the revision afresh. Post remand, the revision has been decided by order dated 14.08.2025. Hence, the present writ petition.

6. Counsel for petitioner submits that the rent agreement executed between the landlord and tenant on 11.07.1990 clearly stipulated in Clause 3 that no proceeding for eviction could be initiated against the tenant, thus, S.C.C. Suit filed could not have been decreed. According to him, the finding recorded by both courts below that the agreement which has been relied cannot be taken in evidence as it is not registered, is not correct. He submitted that it was a case of month to month tenancy and in view of Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act, the registration was not required in terms of Section 17(1)(d) of Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred as “the Act of 1908”). He has relied upon the decision of Apex Court rendered in case of Siri Chand (