ABDUL RAZACK SAB Vs. H K GOPAL SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claiming to be the landlord of the premises in question instituted a petition under clauses (a), (h), (i) and (1) of the proviso to sub-sec.(1) of S.21 of the Mysore Rent Control Act for eviction of the respondent. The property originally belonged to the respondent Gopal Setty. He executed a deed of gift in favour of his nephew H.K.Devendradra Setty who was impleaded as respondent 2 before the Munsiff in respect of of the premises in question and took it back on lease on the same day from the donee. The said H. K. Devendra Setty later on sold the premises in favour of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dt.25-2-1960. There after the petitioner instituted the above mentioned petition for eviction in HRC. No.6 of 1968 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Chitradurga. The respondent denied that he was a tenant in the course of his statement of objections. He raised some other pleas also. But it is unnecessary to refer to them for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition.

(2.) The learned Munsiff took up for consideration the question whether the respondent was a tenant or not as a preliminary issue since the finding on the said issue had a bearing on his jurisdiction to try the petition. In the course of the evidence recorded by the learned Munsiff on the above question the petitioner produced an unregistered lease deed said to have been executed by the respondent on 24-1-1954 in favour of H. K. Devendra Setty, the vendor of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the said document was one which was compulgorily registerable under Sec. 17 of the Registration Act. The learned Munsiff was of the opinion that the said document was not admissible in evidence for any purpose whatsoever and therefore refused to admit it in evidence. On the oral evidence that was adduced, he came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not established that the respondent was a tenant. He accordingly dismissed the petition holding that he had no jurisdiction to try the same under the Mysore Rent Control Act. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsiff, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of the District Judge, Chitradurga. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal. Henece this petition. Sri V. Tarakaram, learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued that the Courts below were in error in not taking into consideration the unregistered lease deed said to have been executed by the respondent in order to decide the question whether the respondent was a tenant or not. In support of the above submission, Shri Tarakaram relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rana Vidya Bhushan Singh v. Shri Rati Ram (1969) 1 SCWR. 341.

(3.) The facts of that case are briefly these : The plaintiffs instituted a suit for ejectment of the defendant on the ground that the defendant was a trespasser. The defendant contended that he was a tenant of the land which was the subject matter of the suit under a lease for 15 years granted by the mother of the plaintiffs during their minority. He also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court in view of S.111 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 which precluded the institution of a suit in a Civil Court for ejectment against a tenant. In support of his case, the defendant produced before the Court an unregistered lease deed executed by the mother of the plaintiffs granting a lease for 15 years in favour of the defendant. The trial Court, relying upon the said document, upheld the contention of the defendant and directed the return of the plaint for presentation to proper Court. In appeal, the District Court agreed with the decision of the trial Court, but it modified the order of the trial Court by ordering the dismissal of the suit. The Judicial Commissioner to whom the second appeal lay set aside the decision of the District Court and restored the decision of the trial Court. The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment and decree of the Judicial Commissioner. The contention of the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court was that the unregistered lease deed relied on by the defendant was not admissible in evidence in view ef the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act. Dealing with the above contention, the Supreme Court observed as follows : The agreement was unregistered. It could not create in favour of the defendant the right of a tenant for a period of fifteen years. The agreement was on that account inadmissible in evidence to support that claim. But in support of the plea that his possession was that of a tenant the defendant was entitled te rely upon the recitals contained in that agreement of lease... A documant required by law to be registered, if unregistered, is inadmissible as evidence of a transaction affecting immoveable property, but it may be admitted as evidence of collateral facts, or for any collateral purpose, that is for any purpose other than that of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to immovable property.