N SAMBAUDAN Vs. SARASWATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P. No. 2875 of 1983: Tenants are . petitioners. Respondent filed a petition under section 10 (2) (vii) of Act XVIII of 1960 claiming that the first petitioner herein, in spite of full knowledge of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of petition premises, had deliberately denied her title joining hands with the second petitioner who is an unauthorised sub-tenant, and hence, they are liable to be evicted. She preferred H.R.C.No. 2776 of 1981 for eviction of these two persons on the ground of wilful default committed by first petitioner and unauthorised subleting by him to the second petitioner herein and in the course of the said proceedings, since a stand had been taken that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition because land alone had been taken on lease, she had to file the present petition.

(2.) Both the petitioners herein, as respondents in H.R.C. No. 2776 of 1981, filed a common counter claiming that second petitioner herein is the elder brother of the first petitioner and had been helping him in the business and that first petitioner had constructed the superstructure spending Rs. 40,000.00 and that only land was taken on lease and the lease agreement dated 14th March, 1974, being an unregistered document, it cannot be relied upon and as he was badly in need of alternative place to run the repair shop, he signed the agreement without knowing that it contained a clause that superstructure was also being leased out, that the monthly rent is only Rs. 200.00 and was enhanced to Rs. 250-per month with effect from January, 1981, that the son of the landlady not having come to collect the rent payment was not made and that no receipts are issued by her and hence, the present petition is not maintainable under Act XVIII of 1960 and that she can only have recourse to a civil suit if so advised. Both the courts having concurrently held that there had been a wilful denial of title of the landlady, in this revision petition it is contended by Mr. T.S. Subramaniam, learned counsel for petitioners, that both the courts have relied upon Exhibit P.4 agreement dated 14th March, 1974, which is an unregistered one and hence, its terms having been relied upon to decide as to whether the superstructure was leased out or not, the orders are vitiated as they treat Exhibit P-4 as substantive evidence, It is admitted that the lease deed was not registered though it was executed for a period of three years. The following decisions are relied upon by him to plead that such an unregistered lease deed ean be looked upon only for the collateral purpose of finding out the nature of possession and nothing more whereas the Appellate Authority has held that Exhibit P-4 can be looked into by the court for collateral purpose for finding out as to what is the property that has been teased out even if it cannot be looked into for the purpose of finding out the nature of the tenancy, which line of reasoning is contrary to decisions of this Court.

(3.) Miss .O.K. Sridevi, learned counsel for the landlady, submits that an unregistered document can be looked into for finding out not only the nature of possession, but terms contained therein can be treated as admission made by the parties to the document and taken into account as a piece of evidence and hence. when the property that was leased out is described in Exhibit P-4 to that extent, it can be collaterally utilised for finding out whether the lease was only in respect of vacant site or both of vacant site and the superstructure