Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kailash Prasad Gupta vs Smt. Pushpa Devi on 14 November, 2025
1
M.P. No. 5048 of 2025 &
M.P. No. 5062 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 14th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5048 of 2025
KAILASH PRASAD GUPTA AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJKUMAR JAIN
.......................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Sharad Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner
Shri Sheersh Agrawal - Advocate with Shri Falgun Yadav -
Advocate for the respondent No.1.
.......................................................................................
WITH
MISC. PETITION No. 5062 of 2025
KAILASH PRASAD GUPTA AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. PUSHPA DEVI
.......................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Sharad Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner
Shri Sheersh Agrawal - Advocate with Shri Falgun Yadav -
Advocate for the respondent No.1.
.......................................................................................
M.P. No. 5048 of 2025 &
Since both these petitions have been filed involving the same issue
and are filed by the same defendants though against different plaintiffs who
are husband and wife, therefore they are being heard together and are
decided by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, facts and reference to documents is
taken from MP No.5048 of 2025.
3. The present petitioner is defendant in both the eviction suits filed by
different plaintiffs who are husband and wife. The suits for eviction filed by
the plaintiffs against the petitioner tenant are on the ground of change of
use, nuisance and bonafide need.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the relationship of
landlord and tenant emanates from an agreement Annexure P-3 which is a
lease deed for unlimited period or at least for 5 years because as per clause
5(E) of the said lease deed it has been mentioned that there would be
increment in rent after completion of every 5 years to the tune of 10%.
Therefore, it is argued that the lease is for a period more than 11 months
and it is a necessarily registrable document and also stamp duty was
required to be paid on it and the said document could not have been
exhibited for any purpose i.e. either for collateral purpose to show the
relationship of landlord and tenant or for the real purpose of breach of
M.P. No. 5048 of 2025 &
terms and conditions of the agreement in absence of it being stamped and
registered.
5. It is further argued by counsel for the petitioner that the suit has not
only been filed seeking eviction on the grounds of eviction as available
under M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 but as evident from para-3
of the plaint it is also based on breach of lease agreement, which is the
questioned lease deed. The aforesaid breach of conditions of lease cannot
be looked into because it would be real purpose and not collateral purpose
and therefore in absence of registration and stamping of the deed Annexure
P-3, it could not be exhibited in evidence but the trial Court has
erroneously rejected the objection of the petitioner-defendant tenant to the
said document being exhibited at the time of evidence by holding on
irrelevant grounds that the document can be looked into for collateral
purpose to show existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between
the parties.
6. Per contra, it is contended by counsel for the plaintiff that the issue has
been conclusively decided by this Court in various cases and the rent
agreement need not be compulsorily registrable nor it requires to be
stamped because if mere relationship of landlord and tenant is required to
M.P. No. 5048 of 2025 &
be shown, then it would only be a collateral purpose which does not require
agreement to be stamped or registered.
7. This Court has gone through the terms and conditions of the said
agreement Annexure P-3 which is alleged to be lease agreement for a
period exceeding 5 years and is stated to be a compulsory registerable
document so also insufficiently stamped document which allegedly cannot
be looked into even for collateral purpose.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had heavily relied on clause 5(E)
of the said document to contend that since it mentions that after completion
of 5 years there would be increment in rent by 10%, hence, it is for an
unlimited period, or atleast for a period more than 5 years.
9. Though the said assertion looks to be very attractive in the first flush
but when looked into in juxtaposition with Section 8 of the Act of 1961,
then the said assertion is found to be devoid of merits. Section 8 of the Act
1961 provides as under section 8 :-
"8. Lawful increase of standard rent in certain cases and
recovery of other charges. - (1) Where a landlord has, at any
time, before the commencement of this Act with or without the
approval of the tenant or after the commencement of this Act
with the written approval of the tenant or of the Rent Controlling
Authority, incurred expenditure for any improvement, addition or
structural alteration in the accommodation not being
expenditure on decoration or tenantable repairs necessary or
usual for such accommodation, and the cost of that improvement,
M.P. No. 5048 of 2025 &
addition or alteration has not been taken into account, in
determining the rent of the accommodation, the landlord may
lawfully increase the standard rent per year by an amount not
exceeding ten per cent of the rent payable, for the time being.
(2) Where a landlord pays in respect of the accommodation any
charge for electricity or water consumed in the accommodation
or any other charge levied by a local authority having
jurisdiction in the area which is ordinarily payable by the tenant,
he may recover from the tenant the amount so paid by him, but
the landlord shall not save as provided in Section 7, recover from
the tenant whether by means of an increase in rent or otherwise,
the amount of any tax on building or land imposed in respect of
the accommodation occupied by the tenant :
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the liability
of any tenant under an agreement, whether express or implied, to
pay from time to time the amount of any such tax as aforesaid."
10. As per the aforesaid, there is a provision to increase the standard rent
per year by an amount not exceeding 10% of the rent payable for the time
being. The clause 5(E) in the rent agreement is as under:-
**(इ) ;g fd ge izR;sd 5 o"kZ iwjs gksus ij fdjk;k 10 izfr'kr c<+kdj nsox
s s tks
vkils r; gqvkA**
11. The aforesaid assertion in the rent agreement only mentions that the
rent would be increased at the rate of 10% per annum after 5 years in place
of per year. Therefore this clause is only clarificatory in nature and only
gives a right to the tenant that his rent would be increased at the rate of
10% only after 5 years and not before that. It does not lead to presumption
of it being a lease for unlimited period and therefore the assertion and
contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of merits.
M.P. No. 5048 of 2025 &
12. So far as the rent agreement being compulsorily registrable is
concerned, the said issue has already been decided in detail by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this court in MP No. 6132 of 2022 (Ashok Kumar and
Anr. Vs. Faisuddin) wherein the Coordinate Bench has held as under :-
"7. It is the case of the petitioners that as the leasee of the
respondent, the suit scheduled property was taken on lease on
11.02.2003, initially for a period of three years at the rent of
Rs.1400/- per month by executing lease agreement on a non-
judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/- for the lease period commencing
from 01.02.2003 signed by both the parties and the tenancy is
month to month. The first petitioner was inducted into position of
the suit scheduled property pursuant to the above said lease
agreement for running business and further as per the rental
agreement, for every three years 10% of amount is enhanced on
the existing rent. The respondent/plaintiff requested the
petitioner/defendants to vacate the premises and he has not
vacated the same and sub-let the suit subject property to the
second defendant and the second defendant is in occupation of
the property illegally and unauthorizedly, therefore, the
respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction by terminating the
tenancy.
8. The petitioners/defendants filed a written statement as well as
the reply for the above said petition opposing the said relief of
eviction and accepted the averments in para 4 of the paint, it
clearly proves that he admitted that the lease agreement said to
have been executed by the petitioners/defendants on 11.02.2023
in favour of respondent/plaintiff When the respondent/plaintiff
administrating the oath to give evidence, the petitioner/defendant
took an objection to mark the lease agreement dated 11.02.2003
on the ground the said lease agreement is not registered and
improperly stamped and the trial Court rejected the objections
and marked the lease agreement as Exhibit P-10 by relying on
the judgment of Smt. Shweta Kumari vs. Shivshankar', the
relevant para held as under-
M.P. No. 5048 of 2025 &
"6. ........ in view the terms of rent note wherein the tenancy
was for month-to-month and the landlord is having right to
get the suit accommodation vacated by giving a notice. This
Court is of the opinion that learned Court below committed
no error in holding that document is neither insufficiently
stamped nor requires registration. Thus, no illegality has
been committed by the learned Court below in rejecting the
objections raised by the petitioner regarding admissibility
of the document in evidence which requires no interference.
In view of this, petition filed by the petitioner has no merits
and the same stands dismissed........"
9. Another decision in Giri Yadav vs. L. Ramesh Goud, the
relevant para 15 held as under:-
"15. .......that the lease agreement, marked as Ex.A-5,
ought not to have been received by the trial Court, in
evidence, at all. She places reliance upon the judgment of
this Court in Mulla Alamsabgari Dastigiri v. B. Pullamma,
and Section 17 of the Registration Act. The objection, as to
admissibility of the document. Ex.4-5, on the ground that it
was not registered, could certainly have been examined, if
only the document was a lease deed. A lease deed, in respect
of an immovable property. for a period, exceeding one year,
or reserving a yearly rent, becomes admissible in evidence,
if only it is registered, as required under Section 107 of the
Act. Ex.A-5 is termed as lease agreement. Even assuming
that the nomenclature of Ex.A-5, is not a decisive factor,
and that its contents disclose that it was a lease deed, the
objection cannot be sustained, for more reasons than one.
Firstly, the appellant admitted the lease through his reply in
Ex A-3. Secondly, even if Ex.A-5 is to be treated as lease
deed, it becomes admissible for collateral purposes, under
the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. The
possession of a party to the suit, in relation to a property, is
always treated as collateral.........."
10. Another decision in Sardar Amar Singh & anr. v.s Smt.
Surinder Kaur, relevant para 12 held as under:-
"12.............we are clearly of the view that the unregistered
lease deed can be used to show the nature and character of
M.P. No. 5048 of 2025 &
possession of the defendants and virtually from the nature of
possession and other circumstances the status of the
applicants (defendants) as tenant in the premises can as
well be established."
11. In light of the above decisions read together, the unregistered
lease deed is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose for
proving the possession of the subject property and it cannot be
used to prove the terms of lease.
12. The another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Paul Rubber
Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Amit Chand Mitra & anr, the relevant
para 14 and 15 held as under:-
"14 ...........This decision is not an authority for the
proposition that nature and character of the possession in
an unregistered lease deed could always constitute
collateral purpose so that the Court could examine the deed
for that reason. The purpose for which lease is granted
forms an integral part of the lease deed in this case and this
very issue forms one of the main disputes. The expression
"collateral purpose" has been employed in proviso to
Section 49 of the Registration Act to imply that content of
such a document can be used for purpose other than for
which it has been executed or entered into by the parties or
for a purpose remote to the main transaction...........
15 ...... It was observed in this judgment that "nature and
character of possession" could constitute collateral purpose
but that was not the point which was directly in lis before
this Court. In our opinion, nature and character of
possession contained in a flawed document (being
unregistered) in terms Section 107 of the 1882 Act and
Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act can form
collateral purpose when the "nature and character of
possession is not the main term of the lease and does not
constitute the main dispute for adjudication by the Court. In
this case, the nature and character of possession constitutes
the primary dispute and hence the Court is excluded by law
from examining the unregistered deed for that
purpose.........."
M.P. No. 5048 of 2025 &
13. In the light of the above decisions, the unregistered lease for
more than two years, though it is not admissible to prove any
right under them, they are admissible to prove the character of
the possession of the leasee and a document required to be
registered, if unregistered, is not admissible in evidence under
Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 such an unregistered
document can however be used is an evidence for collateral
purpose as provided under Section 49 proviso of the Registration
Act, 1908. The proviso is clearly empowers the Courts to admit
any unregistered documents as evidence of any collateral
transaction is not required to be effected by registered instrument
14. In the judgment of A.R.C. Overseas Private Limited v.
Bougainvillea Multiples and Entertainment Centre Pvt. Ltd.,
the relevant para 12 held as under:-
"12. This construction of the provision, which was accepted
for a long time by the High Courts, has been duly
recognized by the amending Act 21 of 1929, which added a
proviso to the section. The proviso clearly empowers the
Courts to admit any unregistered document as evidence of a
collateral transaction not required to be registered. In
(1984) 1 SCC 369: AIR 1984 SC 143 (Satish Chand
Makhan. Govardhan Das Byas) it was held that
unregistered lease deed can be admitted in evidence for
collateral purpose, invoking proviso to Section 49 of the
Registration Act, as terms of lease are not a collateral
purpose within its meaning. (1991) 1 SCC 422 AIR 1991 SC
744 (Rai Chand Jain v. Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla) speaks
that it is well settled that unregistered lease executed by
both the parties can be looked into for collateral
purposes....."
15. In the light of the above decisions, thus in the instant case,
the period of lease and terms of lease cannot be proved by
admitting the lease deed (Exhibit P-10) in evidence, even though
not admissible in evidence can be looked into for collateral
purpose and it is to be seen on the nature of the possession of the
property. If relationship of landlord and tenant can be said to
have been established between the parties, a monthly tenancy
can be presumed under Section 106 of Transfer of the Property
Act, 1882 and unregistered lease deed can be shown to prove the
M.P. No. 5048 of 2025 &
nature and character of the possession but it cannot be used to
prove the terms of the lease and the unregistered lease deed is
admissible in evidence for collateral purpose for proving the
possession of a party. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that
the learned Court below committed no error to receive lease
agreement Ex.P-10 by holding that the document is neither
insufficiently stamped nor requires registration. Thus, no
illegality has been committed by learned Court below in rejecting
the objections raised by the petitioners regarding admissibility of
the lease agreement in evidence which requires no interference.
In view of the same, this petition filed by the petitioners has no
merits, therefore, this Court does not find any basis to interfere
with the order of the Court below.
16. This petition is accordingly, dismissed."
13. As the Coordinate Bench has considered each and every aspect of
the matter, therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the present
case being on similar facts and footing in view of para-7 of the aforesaid
judgment, therefore no different view needs to be taken by this Court and
the document Annexure P-3 is found to be neither compulsorily registrable
nor it can be held to be inadmissible in evidence being insufficiently
stamped. Consequently, no indulgence is warranted in the present matter.
The petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
nks JUDGE
