1994 Supreme(MP) 594

Tej Shankar, J.
Kapoor Chand Jain v. Choudhari Prasanna Kumar
S.A. No. 85 of 1985 (G); Decided on 26.7.1994.

Headnote:(1) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S. 106 -- quit notice -- need not be given by all landlords -- plaintiffs admittedly landlord -- suit by them is good.

        (2) Registration Act, 1908 -- Ss. 17 and 49 -- lease deed requiring registration -- cannot be looked even for collateral purposes.

        ¼1½ laifRr varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 & /kkjk 106 & [kkyh djus dh lwpuk & leLr Hkw&Lokfeksa }kjk nh tkuk vko‘;d ugha & oknhx.k Lohd`r :i ls Hkw&Lokeh & muds }kjk okn ekU; gSA

        ¼2½ jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1908 & /kkjk 17 rFkk 49 & iV~Vk foys[k dk jftLVªhdj.k visf{kr & vkuqkafxd iz;kstuksa ds fy, Hkh fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

        At the time of admission of the appeal the following substantial question of law were formulated :

        1. Whether the lower appellate Court has erred in looking into other evidence in the matter of creation of lease when the plaintiffs case was based on the deed (Ex. P-1), which would be inadmissible in evidence for want of registration?

        2. Whether a notice u/s 106 of the T.P. Act would be invalid when all co-owner landlords have not joined in giving the notice?

        3. Whether a suit for ejectment based on landlord and tenant relationship would be bad and cannot be decreed without all co-owner landlords have not been joined as parties to the suit?

        Held : The present suit armed on the relationship of landlord and tenant and this fact has not been disputed. The only dispute between the parties as appears from the contentions of the learned counsel is as to whether the plaintiffs alone are the landlord and had a right to give a notice and file the suit. All the three questions mentioned above centre round this fact. Now, we have to see as to whether the plaintiffs are landlord as claimed by them and whether they can give the notice and file and suit. If we peruse the pleadings of the parties, we find that the shop in question was taken by respondent no. 1 in his capacity as Karta on 20.1.77. In the written statement the defendants in para 3 alleged that defendant No. 1 Kapoorchand was doing business in the shop in question since 1961 as tenant. He admitted himself to be the tenant of plaintiff No. 1, Panchobai and Ratanbai. It is significant to mention here that initially, it appears, that in the plaint the defendants admitted that defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the plaintiff but it appears that some corrections were made and the words ^^dz- 1 ikapksckbZ o jruckbZ** were added with ink but there is no initial of any person. Not only this, in para 4 of the written statement, it has been mentioned that defendant no. 1 requested the plaintiffs to get the shop repaired and to adjust the expenses in the rent. It again suggests that the defendants have admitted that defendant no. 1 is tenant of the plaintiffs. The relevant words in para 4 are :

        vusd ckj izfroknh dz- 1 us oknhx.k ls ;g fuosnu fd;k fd os mls nqdku dh ejEer djus dh vkKk ns nsa rFkk [kpkZ fdjk;s esa ls dkV ysus nsaA**

        These words clearly go to show the relationship of landlord and tenant. Had the plaintiffs not been the landlord the defendant no. 1 would not have asked them permitting defendant no. 1 to make repairs and to adjust the amount in rent. In the teeth of this admission and aforesaid admission mentioned in para 3, it does not lie in the mouth of the defendants to contend to the contrary. Once the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted in the written statement itself, no evidence at all was needed to establish this fact. Under the law facts admitted need not be proved. Thus, the document Ex. P-1, the rent-deed or lease-deed, as the case may be, cannot be said to have any effect on the merits of the case. The said admission disposes of all the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants i.e. it disposes of the contention that the plaintiff are not the landlord as well as the plaintiff are not the sole landlord and the notice having not been given by all the owners and the suit not being filed by all the owners is bad. All these contentions are negatived in view of the above admission.

        In view of what has been said above, the question as to whether the document in question is rent-deed or lease-deed and what is its effect, as it is an unregistered document loses its importance. If evidence oral or documentary, is led to prove or disprove a fact, but the facts are not disputed and they are admitted, the law does not require any proof of such facts. The above admission has been ignored and has not been taken into consideration by either of the two Courts below. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit merely on the ground that this document is inadmissible, hence the plaintiff could not succeed in proving their case. The learned appellate Court has observed that the document could be read for collateral purposes. After referring certain authorities the appellate Court held that Ex. P-1 was with respect of the user of the property for 11 months was not required to be registered under section 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act and in case registration was required it could be looked into for collateral purpose u/s 49 of the said Act. Mere terms could not be read. In such a document the tenancy will be taken to be monthly. It has been held by Honble the Supreme Court in AIR 1989 SC 1806 (M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Beharilal Kohli) that an unregistered lease-deed is not admissible due to want of registration. It may be of any term. All the terms of unregistered documents are inadmissible. In such case, however, the document can certainly be seen for collateral purposes. The document Ex. P-1 being a bilateral document is, to my mind, a lease-deed and it should have been registered as tenancy itself has been admitted as shown above. Even if this document is not considered for want of registration it has no effect. The contention that other evidence could not be looked into in the absence of this document has no force in view of the aforesaid admission. I, therefore, agree with the finding of the appellate Court that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is established.

        As regards the second and third question formulated it may be mentioned that these questions do not need a detailed enquiry in view of the said admission. AIR 1989 SC 1806 followed. Appeal dismissed.