Court No. - 26
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 67 of 2018 Revisionist :- Sonu Singh Opposite Party :- Anju Thareja Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Kishore Pandey,Ratnesh Nandan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Manish Tandon
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral)
1. I have heard learned counsel for revisionist-tenant, Mr. Ratnesh Nandan Singh and Mr. R.K. Pandey and learned counsel for respondent-landlady, Mr. Atul Dayal and Shri Manish Tandon.
2. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 52, Kanpur Nagar partly decreeing the SCC Suit No. 18 of 2014.
3. Learned counsel for Revisionists has argued that the judgement impugned is based on conjectures and surmises and has wrongly held that on the basis of the rent claimed by the landlady of Rs.7,000/- per month the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would not apply. Whereas, the landlady has failed to prove that the premises in question were a new construction and thus exempted from the applicability of the Act.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist-tenant that a specific pleading has been taken by the revisionist that he had deposited the rent in SCC Case No. 18 of 2013 at the rate of Rs.900/- per month on the basis of a Rent Note executed between the parties to the effect that from November, 2012 the premises in question shall be treated to be in tenancy of the revisionist-tenant at the rate of Rs.900/- per month.
5. Counsel for the revisionist-tenant submits that the revisionist had also deposited six months' rent in advance as security money and the learned Trial Court has wrongly held that the revisionist ought to have deposited Rs.7,000/- per month to seek benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. act No. 13 of 1972.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Ram Kishan Vs. District Judge, Banda and others, 1976 (2) All. Law Report 763 wherein this Court held that purpose behind the Section 20 (4) is to relieve the tenant against the liability for eviction in the suit filed for his ejectment on the grounds of arrears of rent in case he makes requisite deposit as contemplated by Sub Section 4. It has nowhere been stated under Section 20 (4) that the tenant should deposit the rent as claimed by the landlord.
7. The learned counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon the judgment in Mohd. Shahid Vs. District Judge, 2006 (2) JCLR 491 wherein this Court had observed that the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ought to have been given by the learned Trial Court and it has been held that the tenant is not bound to deposit any fantastic amount claimed by the landlord as rent to get the benefit of Section 20 (4).
8. Shri Ratnesh Nandan Singh and Shri R.K. Pandey have also placed reliance upon a Full Bench decision rendered in Gokaran Singh Vs. 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi reported in 2000(1) ARC 653 to submit that initially, the burden of proof with regard to the existence of arrears of rent lies upon the landlord. Once such burden is discharged, then, the tenant will have to prove that he had indeed paid the rent. Where the landlord and tenant both produced the evidence with regard to the existence of arrears and payment of rent, the question of burden of proof loses its importance and it is upon the Court concerned to evaluate the evidence led by both the parties and come to a reasoned conclusion.
9. Shri Atul Dayal appearing for the respondent – landlady has pointed out that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist with regard to Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable in this case as the suit was filed for arrears of rent and eviction before the Small Causes Court under the PSCC Act. He has pointed out various paragraphs of the judgment impugned to show that the Rent Note produced by the revisionist-tenant could not be believed. Moreso, when it was found to be an unregistered document giving a lease of sixty months. He has relied upon a judgment reported in 2016 (1) ARC 284 : Shiv Shambhu Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lokeshwar Prasad and others, paragraph – 32 thereof more specifically, to say that an unregistered lease deed cannot be admitted to prove the terms and conditions of the lease. Admittedly, the Rent Note produced by the revisionist-tenant was for a period of more than one year and therefore, was required to be registered.
10. This Court had observed in Shiv Shambhu Pictures Pvt. Ltd. (supra) after considering the several binding precedents, in paragraph – 32 thus:-
"32. This Court clearly said that an unregistered lease-deed cannot be admitted to prove the terms and conditions of lease. It cannot be seen either for the purpose of tenure of lease or the rate of rent at which the premises had been let out. A collateral purpose is any purpose other than of creating, assigning or extinguishing a right to the immovable property."
11. With regard to the collateral purpose and what could be considered "collateral purpose", the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon M/s. K.B.Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Development Consultant Ltd. 2008 (8) SCC 564 and paragraph – 34 thereof, which is as follows:-
"34. From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to herein above, it is evident that :-
1. A document required to be registered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.
2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.
3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration.
4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards.
5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose."
12. The learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna, 2009 (2) AWC 1272 (SC) wherein in paragraph – 21, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if a document is insufficiently stamped it cannot be read for any purpose at all, not even for collateral purpose.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the revisionist-tenant and counsel for respondent-landlady, I do not find any factual or legal infirmity in the order impugned dated 04.05.2018 to show interference in this revision.
14. This revision is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
15. At this stage, the learned counsel for the revisionist-tenant has prayed for sometime to be given to the revisionist-tenant to vacate the premises in question. He prays time till 31st of December, 2018 as according to him the children of the revisionist are small and they have already been admitted to various Schools and he would suffer great pecuniary loss.
16. Time as prayed for is granted. The revisionist shall vacate the premises in question and deliver the peaceful possession thereof to the landlady on or before 31st of December, 2018, subject to an undertaking being given by him before the learned Trial Court that he shall pay the entire decretal amount, after adjusting the amount which he had already paid, within six weeks from today.
17. In case, the revisionist fails to give such an undertaking before the learned Trial Court, then, the respondent-landlady shall be free to initiate proceedings for execution of the decree and also to initiate contempt proceedings for contemptuous disregard of the order passed by this Court.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 LBY