LUCKY @ GURMEET SINGH Vs. LAJ KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the heirs of Charan Singh who was a tenant in the demised premises. The petition filed by the landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (here -in -after referred to as the "Act") on the ground of non -payment of arrears of rent and change of user was allowed by the Rent Controller on 17.08.2010. The appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed on 19.07.2013. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent has admitted that he would not be pressing the eviction of the petitioners on the ground of non -payment of arrears of rent and would focus only on the finding recorded by the Courts below on issue no.2.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has then argued that the Courts below have erred in recording the finding on issue no.2 relying upon the lease agreement (Ex.A1). It is submitted that the said document is not admissible in evidence because it has been executed for a period of more than a year, required registration in terms of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and since it is unregistered, therefore, it cannot even be looked into for the collateral purposes. In this regard, he has relied upon the following decisions: -

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the document Ex.A1 may be inadmissible in evidence but the purpose for which the demised premises was let out can still be looked into as the document can be read for collateral purposes. In this regard, he has relied upon the following judgments: -