PAWAN KUMAR KOTHIWAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Archit Mehrotra, learned Advocate appearing for revision-applicants and Shri O.P. Singh Sikarwar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State of U.P. and Regional Food Controller, Civil Lines, Moradabad, the tenant respondents.

(2.) The sole issue that arises for consideration before the Court is as to whether an unregistered document presented by the respondent can be read into to draw an inference that there was a tenancy in perpetuity and therefore, could not have been determined by issuance of a notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

(3.) In the instant case revision-applicant/ plaintiff has been nonsuited in the eviction suit only for the reason that respondent presented an unregistered agreement before the court to demonstrate that there was not fixed term tenancy contrary to the stand taken by plaintiff that there was a fixed term tenancy to expire on 30/6/2009 and, therefore, the respondents were liable to be evicted upon expiry of the term of tenancy and in the event of their failure to vacate the premises, the tenancy was liable to be determined by issuance of notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court while dislodging the stand of the plaintiff to determine the tenancy by issuing notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act held that in view of agreement relied upon by the respondents there appear to be no fixed term tenancy and, hence, it amounted to tenancy in perpetuity and plaintiff/ revision-applicant having continued, the respondents in tenancy by their act and conduct, the benefit under Sec. 116 of the Transfer of Property Act of holding over was liable to be extended to the tenant respondent.