ORDER

This Misc. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred challenging the legality of order dated 05.04.2023 in RCS-A/66-A/2016 by IIIrd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mandsaur, District – Mandsaur (M.P.) whreby the objection of the defendant/respondents/tenant has been sustained and the petitioner/plaintiff/landlord has not been allowed to exhibit the Kiraya Chitti tendered in evidence on the ground that tendered document requires registration and the same is not registered.

02. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner/plaintiff/landlord filed the civil suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent asserting that the defendent is the tenant of the accomodation since 01.07.1981 and the existing rent is Rs.4,000/-

Signature Not Verified per month. It is also submitted that the said accomodation has been purchased by the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 02.08.2010 and the defendent is the tenant of plaintiff. The defendent/respondent filed the written statement admitted the contents of paragraph 4 of the plaint that the defendant no.1 executed the Kiraya Chitti in favour of Saiffuddin but expressed the ignorance regarding the execution of sale deed by Saiffuddin. The present respondent/defendant has specifically denied that the plaintiff/petitioner is landlord of the suit accommodation. During the course of examination of plaintiff he tendered the documents executed by the defendant/respondent in favouir of Saiffuddin which is Annexure-P/5 and defendant/respondent objected for admission.

03. The trial court sustained the objection and denied the admission of the Annexure-P/5 on the ground that the Kiraya Chitti is for the period of more than 1 year and it requires registration. The same is not registered so that is not admissible in evidence.

04. The impugned order has been challenged on the following grounds:-

(a) The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper andarbitrary and againstthe settled principles of law.

(b) The learned trial Court has committed grave error of law and facts on record by not giving any reasoning while passing the impugned order and has merely referred to the judgment without ascertaining its applicability in the peculiar facts and circumstancesofthe present case and hencesuch order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as the reasoning of any orderis considered as heart and soul of the order and in absenceof speaking order the same deservesto be set-aside.

(c) The learned trial Court has committed grave error of law and facts on record by not considering the fact that the rent note was admissible in evidence and was not required to be registered under any law and without considering the rent note in correct perspective the Signature Not Verified impugnedorder was passedin an arbitrary and slip shod manner.

(d) The learned trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the rent note was executed between the respondent and the predecessor of petitioner and the said rent note is very crucial for the purposes of establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant and hence by depriving the petitioner from exhibiting the said crucial documents will have an adverse effect on the interest of the petitioner.

(e) The learned trial Court has failed to consider that the objection raised by the respondent does not hold any water as the rent note was not required to be registered as the same was executed for a year and thereafter the tenancy has become monthly.

(f) The other grounds would be urged at the time of final hearing of the case.

05. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer and submitted that the order does not require interference.

Heard.

06. Annexure-P/1 was executed on 01.07.1981 for a period of 1 year and condition no.7 is reproduced as under:-

१५ “vkidks edku [kkyh djkus dh vko';drk gks rks fnu igys lpw uk feyus ij edku [kkyh dj nxwa k mlesa fdlh rjg dh njsh ugha d:xa k] o"kkZ dk le; gkus s ij Hkh fdlh rjg dk fojk/sk u