Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral)

Present revision is preferred assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2013 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court/District Judge, Rudraprayag in Suit No. 01 of 2012 filed by plaintiff/respondent, herein, and for eviction of defendant/revisionist, herein, and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 30,000/- and to pay mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day from the date of termination of the tenancy.

2. Since facts are not in dispute, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present revision petition was heard finally and is being disposed of today.

3. Undisputedly, Mr. Kalika Prasad @ Anil Kala S/o Ram Prasad Kala let out shop in question to the defendant/revisionist, herein, for which a lease deed was also executed between defendant/revisionist, herein, and Anil Kala on 1.7.2000. Initially, rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month, however, it was agreed that after one year rent would be increased 10 per cent and every year there would be increase of 10 per cent rent.

4. Plaintiff/respondent, herein, preferred suit for eviction of the tenant/revisionist, herein, with the contention that plaintiff/respondent, herein, in fact, has purchased shop in question from earlier owner Kalika Prasad @ Anil Kala for which a document was written on the stamp paper of Rs.1,000/- on 29.8.2011. Having purchased the shop in question from the earlier owner Kalika Prasad @ Anil Kala, plaintiff issued notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to the tenant/defendant/revisionist, herein, terminating the tenancy on expiry of thirty days from the receipt of the notice and asking the revisionist, herein, to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and to handover vacant and actual possession of the shop in dispute to the plaintiff after expiry of thirty days from the date of receipt of notice.

5. Defendant/revisionist, herein, preferred his written statement before the trial court stating therein that plaintiff has not purchased the shop in question, therefore, plaintiff is neither owner nor landlord of property in question and, therefore, suit for eviction is liable to be dismissed. It has further been contended by the defendant/revisionist in the written statement that in fact defendant has paid the total cost of the shop to Kalika Prasad @ Anil Kala and, therefore, defendant has acquired ownership right of the shop in question.

6. Undisputedly, plaintiff/respondent, herein, is claiming to have purchased shop in question vide document dated 29.8.2011, certified copy of which is placed on record as Annexure No. 3 to the revision. A perusal of document dated 29.8.2011 reveals that plaintiff is alleging to have purchased the shop in question for Rs. 5,00,000/-.

7. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 reads as under :

“54. “Sale” defined – “Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.

Sale how made. – Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument.

In the case of tangible immovable property, of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property.

Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.

8. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an immovable property having value of more than Rs.100/- can only be transferred by way of registered instrument and not otherwise. Since document dated 29.8.2011 is not a registered document, therefore, it cannot be accepted as valid sale.

9. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent, herein, vehemently argued that plaintiff is ready a