SANTOSH SINGH BHADAURLYA Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. This revision ap plication under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1-3-97 passed by XHIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, in S. C. C. Suit No. 29 of 1996. It was a suit for eviction of a tenant after due service of notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act. The plaintiffs had alleged that the tenancy was created through an agreement. The notice also made mention about that agreement. The agreement in question was an unregistered one and the trial court held that it was inadmissible and could not be acted upon. The court, however, found that the relationship of the landlord and the tenant was there and the tenancy was from month to month. The court below believed the oral evidence on the point of rate of rent as well. The court acted upon the notice that was proved before it and the aforesaid decree was passed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the rent agreement was an invalid document and no suit could have been filed on the basis thereof. It was further stated that the suit was bad because the S. C. C. Court had no jurisdiction to try it and the plaint should have been rejected under Order 7, Rule ll (d) of the C. P. C. It was further argued that no oral evidence was to be accepted against the contents of a document and as such the court below had no authority to act upon the oral evidence when there was an agreement on record between the parties. It was further argued that the valuation of the suit was Rs. 47,000 and the suit was beyond the nature of small cause suit.

(3.) THE third point raised by the learned counsel is'regarding admission of oral evidence against the contents of a docu ment. THE document in question is an in admissible one and it was, therefore, not to be read as evidence. Moreover evidence was led to prove the rate of rent and it was not for the purpose of contradicting anus term of that agreement. Section 91 was, there fore, no bar to the entertainment of the oral evidence on the point of rate of rent.