Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harish Bhatt vs Sanyukta on 1 September, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 6) [CW-6212/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6212/2023
Harish Bhatt S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Ji Bhatt, Aged About 55 Years,
Resident Of Opposite Manglam Complex, Near Amba Mata
Temple, Banswara (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Sanyukta W/o Shri Madhusudan Jha, Resident Of Nagarwada,
Banswara.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi a/w
Mr. Mahendra Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Trivedi
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 29/08/2023
Pronounced on 01/09/2023
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction:-
(i) quash the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 (Annex.-5)
passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Banswara in Original
Rent Application No.01/2022; and
(ii) the application dated 25.11.2022 filed by the petitioner
may kindly be allowed with costs in toto & the document
rent note dated 22.05.1992 tendered in evidence by the
respondent may be declared as inadmissible in evidence &
same be ordered to be kept in part-D; and
(2 of 6) [CW-6212/2023]
(iii) any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit, necessary in the facts and circumstances of the
present case be granted in favour of the petitioner; and
(iv) Cost of the writ petition kindly ordered to be awarded to
the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned
counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent filed an eviction
case under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
before the learned Rent Tribunal, Baswara against the petitioner,
reply whereto was filed by the petitioner.
2.1. The said eviction case was posted for evidence of the
respondent, whereupon, the petitioner raised an objection
regarding the admissibility of the rent note dated 22.05.1992 and
the petitioner filed an application under Sections 17 & 49 of the
Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1908')
before the learned Rent Tribunal, stating therein that the rent note
as produced by the respondent, for a period of 5 years and the
same was not registered; therefore, the same cannot be allowed
to be marked as exhibit.
2.2. The learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 10.02.2023,
dismissed the said application.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per
Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a lease of
immovable property from year to year or any term exceeding one
year or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered
instrument. In the present case, the rent note was for a period of
(3 of 6) [CW-6212/2023]
5 years and therefore it cannot marked as exhibit to be admissible
in evidence.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Sections 17 &
49 of the Act of 1908, the lease registration is compulsory, and
thus, in absence of registration, as in the present case, the lease
deed/rent note, as relied by the respondent, was not at all
admissible.
3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Rent
Tribunal has erred in observing that the petitioner has admitted
about the existence and conditions of the said rent note, because
the petitioner has neither admitted the existence of said rent note
nor admitted any of its conditions, and therefore, the impugned
order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal is not justified in law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the rent note was
executed between the petitioner and respondent on 22.05.1992,
and thus, there was no requirement of registration thereof, and
thus, the impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous.
4.1. It was further submitted that the petitioner himself admitted
in his written statement regarding the said rent note and no
objection was taken therein. It was also submitted that Section 17
of the Act of 1908 debars a document to be read as evidence
when it is not registered, but Section 49 of the Act of 1908
permits that the said document to be read as evidence for
collateral purposes.
(4 of 6) [CW-6212/2023]
4.2. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Shibani Basu Vs Sandip Ray (Civil Appeal No. 10053 of
2010, decided on 26.11.2010) and; the judgment rendered by a
Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the case
of Kiran S. Purohit Vs Rent Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr.
(S.B.C.W.P. No. 756/2010, decided on 10.03.2010).
Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Shibani Basu
(Supra) is reproduced as hereunder:-
"These facts were important and held the key to the
determination of the question whether the notice had validly
terminated the tenancy. The High Court had in the first order
passed by it correctly held the notice of termination of tenancy
to be legally valid. After the matter was remanded back to it to
consider the effect of non- registration of the rent
note/agreement of tenancy it has taken a view that has not
appealed to us. It is true that the non-registration of the
rent note does not debar the use of a document that is
compulsorily registerable for collateral purposes but that
aspect would in the instant case pale into insignificance keeping
in view the state of pleadings on the question of month of
tenancy and the legal implications thereof".
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.
6. This Court observes that the respondent filed the
aforementioned eviction case before the learned Rent Tribunal,
during pendency whereof, the petitioner raised the objection
regarding admissibility of the rent note dated 22.05.1992 and filed
an application under Sections 17 & 49 of the Act of 1908;
(5 of 6) [CW-6212/2023]
however, the learned Rent Tribunal vide the impugned order dated
10.02.2023, rejected the said application.
7. This Court further observes that the petitioner himself in his
written statement (in para nos.9 & 10) admitted the tenancy
between the petitioner and the respondent in the year 1992,
which was further continued, and also mentioned the details of the
payment of the rent towards such tenancy. This Court also
observes that the learned Rent Tribunal observed in the impugned
order that as per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if
the facts are admitted, then the same need not be proved.
8. This Court further observes that the petitioner himself in his
written statement and affidavit admitted the rent note dated
22.05.1992 and even did not take any objection regarding the
same.
9. At this juncture, this Court considers it appropriate to
reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the
case of Kiran S. Purohit (Supra) as hereunder:
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the impugned order.
Although Section 17 of the Registration Act debars a
document to be read in evidence in case it is not duly
registered, but Section 49 of the Act permits that the said
document can be read for collateral purposes. Thus, the
learned Tribunal is free to read the said lease agreement
for collateral purposes. Moreover and most importantly,
since the petitioner had already admitted the fact that he is the
tenant of Harish Ahalwat, the lease agreement looses much of
importance....."
(6 of 6) [CW-6212/2023]
10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and in view of
the aforementioned precedent law and looking into the factual
matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case
so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present
petition.
11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All
pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
