The admissibility of unregistered documents can support claims for tenancy, provided they establish possession and are not contested in timeliness during litigation.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present appeals arise out of the same suit and, as such, are taken up together for analogous hearing.

2. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of his tenancy right in respect of the suit premises, which is comprised of four car parking spaces at 12, Beadon Row, P.S- Bortolla, Kolkata - 700 006, and consequential reliefs. The defendants/respondents filed a counter claim seeking eviction of the plaintiff/appellant as a trespasser. The suit was dismissed, against which F.A. No.4 of 2019 has been preferred, and the counter claim of the respondent was allowed, giving rise to F.A. No.5 of 2019.

3. The bone of contention between the parties is their respective right, title and interest in the suit property.

4. By an agreement dated February 4, 2003, one Chittaranjan Ghosh, a tenant under the original ownersin respect of the original property at 12, Beadon Row, granted sub-tenancy of one big room, one kitchen and separate adjoining space to the plaintiff/appellant allegedly on oral consent of the owners/superior landlords.

5. Subsequently, the owners entered into a development agreement with one Ashish Roy and one Dilip Kumar Saha for development of the suit building.

6. On August 10, 2005, the said Ashish Roy, being a developer and one of the constituted attorneys of the owners, entered into a „Deed of Rehabilitation of Tenant‟ with the plaintiff/appellant, agreeing that if the appellant vacates the said building as it originally stood, four car parking spaces with 20 per cent super built-up area would be sold on the Northern Side of the ground floor of the newly constructed building to the appellant at a consideration ofRs.2,50,000/-. It was recorded in the said deed that out of the total consideration, Rs.2,00,000/- was being paid in advance and the balance would be paid later.

7. The property was duly developed.

8. Subsequently, on February 6, 2007, the owners of the property, represented by Ashish Roy, one of their constituted attorneys, granted lease to the plaintiff in respect of the newly constructed four demarcated car parking spaces on the Northern side of the ground floor on 12, Beadon Row. As per the lease agreement, the plaintiff would be entitled to remain as a lessee in respect of the said property (the present suit property) at a monthly rental of Rs.1000/-(calculated as interest at the rate of 2 per cent of the balance consideration amount of Rs.50,000), and upon the balance consideration amount being paid by the appellant, the appellant would be entitled to have a sale deed registered in his favour in respect of the said four car parking spaces, the outer time limit for which was stipulated as 21years.

9. In the meantime, on January 27, 2007, the owners, through their constituted attorneys Ashish Roy and Dilip Kumar Saha, executed sale deeds in respect of the separate flats along with allocated car parking spaces on the western side of the building to the defendants as well as to one Pratima Saha, the wife of the appellant. The sale deed dated January 27, 2007 executed in favour of Pratima Saha is admittedly identical with the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants, apart from the individual flats and car parking spaces being different.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that it is clear from the rent receipts and the documents produced by the appellant that the appellant was inducted by the owners as a lessee in respect of the suit car parking spaces on monthly rental basis. If the appellant pays the balance consideration amount within 21 years, the said four car parking spaces will be sold to the plaintiff/appellant.

11. It is argued that the respective sale deeds of each of the defendants as well as the appellant‟s wife clearly exclude the suit car parking spaces which were allocated specifically to the appellant. It is argued that the common and proportionate rights conferred on the purchasers in respect of the common areas and open spaces as well as other facili