SAIFUDDIN SAHEBLAL VAZIR Vs. HABJABAI MISHRA PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule, by consent, rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 440/1982 came to be filed by the respondents for eviction of the petitioner from a plot of land admeasuring 27 x 54 sq. ft. out of property bearing C. T. S. No. 1333/27, "e" Ward, Tarna Nagar Co-operative Society, Sagarmal, Kolhapur and was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal against the same was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The matter was carried in Writ Petition No. 1363/1995. The learned Single Judge of this Court after taking stock of the facts of the case, disputed as well as undisputed, pinpointed the dispute being related to the document dated 31st March, 1976 which according to the respondents speaks of creation of lease for more than one year, and therefore, in the absence of registration thereof, is not admissible in evidence and cannot be read in evidence for any purpose whereas, according to the petitioner, the said document does not create lease but it is merely a receipt given by the respondents to the petitioner acknowledging the receipt of rent of the suit premises for a period of 98 years in advance, and in consideration of permission for sub-letting of the premises by the petitioner. After ascertaining the exact nature and the scope of the dispute relating to the document in question, it was held that, : "if the document dated 31st March, 1976 is held to be a document creating the lease as it is not registered, obviously it cannot be read in evidence for any purpose including for the purpose of showing that the landlady was permitted sub-letting of the premises. On the contrary, if the document is held to be a document not creating a lease, but merely acknowledging the receipt of advance rent, then obviously it is not compulsory to have it registered and, therefore, can be admitted in evidence. " With the above ruling in the matter, it was further observed that: "both the sides have agreed before me that the evidence on record has not been appreciated by both the courts below from this point of view. " And consequently with the consent of the parties, the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh trial of the suit only on the ground of sub-letting.

(3.) DURING the trial, the petitioner filed an application praying that the document in question may be exhibited and read in evidence. The application was objected to by the respondents. The trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the said application on the ground that the document of which the registration is compulsory, the same cannot be exhibited and that it is clear that a document in question has not been registered and, therefore, cannot be exhibited at any time or at any costs.