Allahabad High Court

Ankit Singh Alias Bittu Singh vs Alok Singh And 2 Others on 27 October, 2025

Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 



 
Reserved On: 14.10.2025
 
Delivered On: 27.10.2025
 

 

 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
S.C.C. REVISION No. - 115 of 2025
 

 
Ankit Singh Alias Bittu Singh
 

 

 
..Revisionist(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 
Alok Singh and 2 others
 

 

 
..Opposite Party(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
 
:
 
Bidhan Chandra Rai, Stuti Rai
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
 
:
 
Ashish Agrawal
 

 

 
Court No. - 36 
 

 
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter called as Act of 1887) has been filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mau in S.C.C. Suit No.3 of 2014 (Alok Singh and others Vs. Ankit Singh).

2. Facts, leading to filing of the present revision, are that Alok Singh, Amit Singh and Vivek Singh claiming to be the owner and landlord of two constructed tin sheds situated at Mauza Nassopur, Post- Umapur, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Mau and one mandai and two cement sheds (small) also situated at Mauza Nassopur, Post- Umapur, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Mau. Both the properties have been described in the plaint as A and B.

3. According to the plaint, plaintiffs constructed the permanent cement shed and mandai for starting their business in 2008, but due to domestic problems could not commence the business. Both the cement sheds were let out to the defendant-revisionist at a monthly rate of Rs.8,000/- for starting business of poultry farm. The tenancy was to run on month to month basis.

4. As per plaint, tenant-revisionist had paid rent upto December, 2012. Due to default in payment of rent, a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was given by the plaintiffs-landlord on 13.05.2013 demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy. Due to defect in the notice, another notice was given by the plaintiffs on 05.09.2013 which was delivered upon defendant who did not vacate the premises, nor paid the arrears of rent. Thereafter, a suit for eviction was filed which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No.3 of 2014 on the ground that defendant-revisionist was in arrears of rent from 1st January, 2013 to 5th March, 2014 and total outstanding amount was Rs.1,13,335/-.

5. The suit was contested by defendant-revisionist on the ground that property mentioned as Schedule A was taken on rent at yearly rent of Rs.3,000/- in 2007 for starting business of poultry farm. While, property mentioned in Schedule B was taken in January, 2008 on a rent of Rs.5,000/- per year for the period of 20 years. The defendant-revisionist had thereafter raised construction over the leased land and constructed the sheds and incurred an expense of Rs.25 lakhs. Defendant had deposited yearly rent till 2012 @ Rs.8,000/- per year. The trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties had framed the following issues:-

1- क्या विपक्षी 8,000/- रुपये प्रति माह के रूप में वादीगण का किरायेदार है?

2- क्या वादीगण द्वारा धारा 106 सम्पत्ति अंतरण अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत विधिक नोटिस विपक्षी को प्रेषित किया गया है?

३- क्या वादीगण का वाद धारा 15 लघु वाद अधिनियम के प्रावधान से बाधित है?

4- क्या न्यायालय को इस वाद के सुनवाई का क्षेत्राधिकार प्राप्त है?

5- क्या वादीगण किसी अनुतोष को पाने का अधिकारी है?

6. Issue no.1 was as to whether defendant was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- of the tenanted house of the plaintiffs. While, issue no.2 was as to whether notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was served upon the defendant, and thirdly whether the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1887.

7. The trial Court, on analysis after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence so led held that as there was no written agreement and plaintiffs could not prove that it was let out @ Rs.8,000/- per month and proceeded to hold that accommodation was rented out @ Rs.8,000/- per annum. However, while deciding issue no.1, the trial Court found that the construction made over the accommodation was not by the defendant-revisionist, and it was made by the plaintiffs-landlord.

8. Issue no.2 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs, wherein the finding was recorded that the registered notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was served upon the defendant-respondent.

9. Issue no.3 regarding the applicability of Section 15 of the Act of 1887 was decided against the defendant-revisionist. By the impugned judgment dated 02.08.2025, the suit for eviction was decreed and the defendant was directed to pay the rent for 12 years @ Rs.8,000/- per annum from January, 2013 to December, 2024, hence the present revision.

10. Sri B.C. Rai, learned counsel appearing for revisionist has submitted that trial Court committed manifest error by decreeing the suit solely on the basis of the oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and wrongly discarded the documentary evidence submitted by the defendant-revisionist in regard to the construction raised over the land leased out. According to him, S.C.C. suit is not maintainable in view of Section 15 of the Act of 1887 against the defendant as only a land was leased out and the construction raised over by the defendant does not come within the definition of building and decree of eviction cannot be passed.

11. Sri Rai, learned counsel has further submitted that list of documents was filed as Paper No.50-C, which was not considered by the trial Court and incorrect finding has been recorded that the same has not been proved by the independent witness. According to him, once the document has been filed as an evidence, the trial Court should have considered the same and recorded a finding. He has also contended that Court below committed an error by not framing points of determination as whether the lease given by plaintiffs-landlord was in nature of a open piece of land or permanent structure. The finding recorded that permanent structure was constructed on the basis of the statement of witness of plaintiffs-respondents has not been corroborated by any documentary material placed on record.

12. He has also contended that Court below had merely relied upon the plaint averment and oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 which cannot be said to be an evidence of raising structure over the land leased out to the revisionist. He lastly contended that the Court below committed manifest error of law by wrongly recording finding on provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1887, as the land was taken on lease for 20 years. Reliance has been placed upon several decisions of Honble Apex Court as well as the decisions of this Court rendered in cases of Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Banda (Dead) Through His Lrs. And Another, (1993) 1 Supreme Court Cases 531, Harish Chandra And Another Versus Mohd. Ismail And Others, (1990) 4 Supreme Court Cases 493, Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (Dead) Through Legal Representatives Versus Muddasani Sarojana, (2016) 12 Supreme Court Cases 288, Mahavir Singh Versus State Of Haryana, (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 716, Laxmibai (Dead) Through Lrs. And Another Versus Bhagwantbuva (Dead) Through Lrs. And Others, (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 97, Koti Saroj Anamma And Another Versus Jonnalagada Malleswara Rao, (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 347, Raj Narain Versus Shiv Raj Saran and another, 1968 SCC Online All 244, Kali Ram (Deceased) Versus Mistri Udal (Deceased), 2010 SCC Online All 2136, Bashisth Mani Tripathi Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 1979 SCC Online All 164 and Oudh Chief Court in case of Puttoo Lal Versus Ewaz Ali and Another, AIR 1938 Oudh 225.

13. Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the landlord-respondents has submitted that a specific case was set up in the plaint that accommodation let out to revisionist was two permanent cement sheds described in Schedule A, one mandai and two small sheds described in Schedule B to the tenant in the year 2008 at a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/-. The alleged oral agreement between the landlord and tenant was for a period of one year. The oral agreement which took place between the parties was in presence of PW-2, Ram Awadh Singh.

14. In the cross-examination, PW-2- Ram Awadh Singh has proved that the rent agreement was for Rs.8,000/- per month in respect of constructed structure leased out to the tenant-revisionist. He also contended that DW-2, Pankaj Maurya had only submitted his examination-in-chief through an affidavit, but did not appear for cross-examination. He also contended that an oral lease can only be made for the period of one year. The claim of oral lease having been executed for 20 years in 2008 is totally against the material on record and against the provisions of Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act.

15. According to Sri Agrawal, landlord-respondents had never executed any lease for 20 years, nor the revisionist could prove the said fact through any evidence. He then submitted that Paper No.50-C, which was the list of the documents filed by the revisionist, was not admitted by the plaintiffs-respondents and an endorsement was made on the said application on 26.05.2018. The documents which were tried to be brought on record by respondents are neither primary or secondary evidence, nor any effort was made to prove those documents. The receipts, which have been brought on record, were only the photocopies which were necessary to be proved and the Court below had rightly refused to entertain and recorded finding that permanent cement sheds were leased out to the revisionist, and the suit is not barred by the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1887.

16. Learned counsel has also invited attention of this Court to the second Schedule of clause-4 of U.P. Amendment, wherein it is provided that a suit for the possession of immovable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property, but not including a suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a building after the determination of his lease, and for the recovery from him of compensation for the use and occupation of that building after such determination of lease is not barred. According to him, it was not open piece of land which was let out to the revisionist, but a roofed structure in form of shed was given and revisionist had failed to prove the construction made by him except the fact that iron mesh was put by him.

17. He has lastly contended that plaintiff has proved that notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was served upon the defendant-revisionist and his lease stood determined and he has not vacated the accommodation and the Court below had rightly decreed the suit for eviction.

18. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

19. It is a case where accommodation in question has been let out by the plaintiffs-landlord/respondents to the tenant-revisionist. While, plaintiffs-landlord claim that he has let out a permanent cement shed and mandai along with two small sheds to the defendant @ Rs.8,000/- per month in the year 2008, while there is a denial on the part of tenant-revisionist that open piece of land was let out in the year 2007 which has been described in Schedule A of the property, while two small open piece of land marked in Schedule B was leased out. The annual rent for both the properties let out was Rs.8,000/- per annum.

20. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stressed that Court below should have framed the points of determination as to whether a piece of land was let out, or a constructed structure was let out to the revisionist by the plaintiffs-landlord. From the reading of judgment of Court below and the pleadings of parties, it is amply clear that Court below had framed five issues before deciding the matter and point of determination no.1 was as to whether revisionist was a tenant @ Rs.8,000/- per month or not. While, dealing with this issue, the Court not only ventured into the pleadings of the parties, but also took into consideration of the oral testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and DW-1 who were examined on oath before the Court. PW-2, Ram Awadh Singh in his cross-examination accepted that oral rent agreement was executed between the landlord and tenant in his presence @ Rs.8,000/- per month for the permanent cement shed as well as a mandai and two small sheds which were leased out to the tenant. While, DW-2- Pankaj Maurya witness produced by the revisionist after filing of his examination-in-chief through an affidavit being Paper No.65-A never turned up for cross-examination, despite sufficient time having been given to him.

21. The Court below recorded specific finding that a list of documents was filed by the revisionist being Paper No.50-C, but the same were not proved by independent witness. Counsel for the landlord had specifically submitted that documents so placed were not admitted by the plaintiffs-landlord, and it was the duty of defendant to have proved the same as primary or secondary evidence before being taken into consideration.

22. Before proceeding to consider whether the documents placed were primary or secondary evidence, a cursory glance of some of the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1872) are necessary for better appreciation of the case. Documentary evidence finds place in Chapter-V of the Act of 1872. Section 61 provides that contents of documents may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence.

23. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Narmada Agarwalla And others, AIR 1993 Ori 103, Court had held that admission of documents amounts to admission of contents, but not its oath. Similarly, Calcutta High Court in case of Afzauddin Ansary and others Vs. State of Bengal, 1996 SCC OnLine Cal 338 held that a man may lie, but document will never lie. The contents of documents are, therefore, proved either by primary or secondary evidence. Section 62 of the Act of 1872 defines primary evidence which means that document itself is produced for inspection of the Court. Relevant provisions are extracted hereas under:-

62. Primary evidence. Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.

24. Section 63 defines secondary evidence which means as under:-

63. Secondary evidence. Secondary evidence means and includes

(1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;

(2) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies

(3) copies made from or compared with the original;

(4) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;

(5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.

25. Section 64 provides that documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases which are mentioned in Section 65. Section 65 is extracted hereas under:-

65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:

(a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power

of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or

of any person legally bound to produce it,

and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;

(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;

(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;

(d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;

(e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74;

(f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence;

(g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection.

In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. In case (b), the written admission is admissible.

In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible.

In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.

26. From perusal of above provisions, it is clear that only in cases where original is shown or appears to be in possession or power of a person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved, or when original has been destroyed or lost, or where the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable, or when original is a public document within meaning of Section 74, or where original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by the Act, or by any other law, or when the originals consists numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, then only a secondary evidence would be given, otherwise, in all cases, primary evidence has to be given.

27. In the instant case, the opportunity was provided to the revisionist to prove the list of documents filed by him through Paper No.50-C. The plaintiffs had objected and made endorsement not admitted. The defendant-revisionist never made any effort to prove the document either by primary evidence or secondary evidence. It appears from the record of paper-book that photocopies of the documents were placed and no effort was made to prove the contents through either primary evidence or secondary evidence.

28. Once, the defendant himself has failed to prove the list of documents placed by him, he cannot assail the findings on the ground that documentary evidence was discarded by the Court below. Moreso, Pankaj Maurya, the witness produced by him also never appeared for cross-examination, thus the stand taken as to lease of land was never proved before the Court below.

29. On the contrary, the plaintiffs-landlord through their witness, Ram Awadh Singh had proved the factum of letting out two permanent cement sheds along with one mandai and two small sheds to the revisionist in the year 2008 @ Rs.8,000/- per month.

30. Argument made in respect of framing points of determination as to whether a lease of open piece of land was made, or a roofed structure was considered by the Court below while dealing the first point of determination as far as monthly rate of rent was concerned and exhaustive finding has been recorded.

31. The Court also found while dealing with the third point of determination that suit was not barred in view of provisions of Section 15 of the Act as provided in the second Schedule as explanation to clause IV of the U.P. Amendment clearly saves institution of such suit where the lessor seeks eviction of a lessee from a building after determination of a lease, and for recovery from him of compensation for use and occupation after such determination of lease. Reliance placed upon the various decisions by the revisionist is distinguishable on the facts of the present case.

32. Now, coming to another aspect of the case that whether lease was granted for the period of 20 years or not, this Court finds that a categorical finding has been recorded by the trial Court that stand taken in the written statement by the tenant-revisionist is that oral lease was executed for 20 years which is barred in view of Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act. The provision of Section 107 only provides for an oral lease for a period of one year, in case, any lease executed to be beyond that period needs to be registered.

33. In the instant case, it is an admitted position between the parties that no registered document was executed between the parties in regard to execution of lease. The pleading made in the written statement was rightly rejected by the trial Court in view of Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act.

34. In Punjab National Bank Vs. Ganga Narain Kapur, AIR 1994 Alld 221, the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that if a lease of immovable property for a term of more than a year is not made by a registered deed or is made orally, then in such cases, the presumption about the duration of lease under Section 106 will apply. Section 106 clearly provides for duration of lease in absence of written contract or local usage. According to it, the lease of immovable property in case of hand written contract would be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months notice, and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days notice.

35. Once, there was no written agreement between the parties as to the duration of lease, the trial Court rightly repelled the case of tenant-revisionist as alleged oral lease was never registered and was barred by the provisions of Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act.

36. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no interference is required in the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mau in S.C.C. Suit No.3 of 2014.

37. Revision fails and is hereby dismissed.

38. However, in the interest of justice, in case the execution proceedings has not been concluded and the order passed by Court below has not been executed, the revisionist shall not be evicted from the property in dispute for six months subject to following conditions:-

(a) The tenant-revisionist shall file an undertaking before Court below that he shall hand over peaceful possession of the property in question to the landlord-respondents on or before 30.04.2026;

(b) The said undertaking shall be filed before the court below within two weeks from today;

(c) The tenant-revisionist shall pay entire decretal amount within a period of one month from today;

(d) In the undertaking, the tenant-revisionist shall also state that he will not create any interest in favour of the third party in the premises in dispute;

(e) It is made clear that in case of default of any of the conditions mentioned herein-above, the protection granted by this Court shall stand vacated automatically.