LACHHMI DEVI Vs. SATYA WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the Authorities below.

(2.) THE premises in dispute is a residential house No. 3019, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh. The landlady Smt. Satya Wati sought the ejectment of her tenant Smt. Lachhmi Devi inter alia on the ground that the tenant had sublet the annexed portion of the said house to one Rattan Lal, respondent No. 2 in April, 1980, whereas the house in dispute was let out to the tenant with effect from 1st October, 1979 at the rate of Rs. 1350/- per month excluding electricity and water charges. In para 1 of the ejectment application it was specifically pleaded that the landlady is the owner of house No. 3019, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh, and respondent No. 1 (now petitioner) took on rent the ground floor including annexe. In the written statement the plea taken by the tenant was that she was a tenant in a room on the first floor and the whole of the ground floor and the annexe portion including garage, except the rear portion consisting of two rooms. In the replication filed on behalf of the landlady, this was denied. It was further stated that tenant has sublet a part of the premises to respondent No. 2 without the written consent of the landlady. A further plea taken by the tenant in the written statement that along with her, her husband was also the tenant, was denied. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 Rattan Lal, he admitted that he took the annexe portion of the said house on rent from the tenant Lachhmi Devi in April 1980 and has been paying rent regularly to her. Thus the main controversy between the parties before the Rent Controller was as to whether the said two rooms in the annexe in occupation of Rattan Lal form part of the tenancy or not. It is the common case of the parties that if those two rooms form part of the tenancy, then Rattan Lal being admittedly in occupation thereof, the tenant was liable to ejectment on the ground of subletting. The landlady in order to prove her case produced the document titled as 'Rent Agreement' Mark-A dated 7th December, 1979 and also produced a document (Exhibit P-A) said to be in the handwriting of the tenant, showing that a sum of Rs. 200/- was charged from Rattan Lal as rent for the month of September. On the basis of the said evidence, both the Authorities below found that the two rooms in occupation of Rattan Lal did form part of the tenancy and therefore the subletting was proved. Eviction order was, consequently, passed by the Rent Controller and maintained in appeal. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed revision petition in this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the said document and the relaxant evidence on the record. It may be that the Rent Agreement (Mark A) was not produced by the landlady along with ejectment application, but it is the common case of the parties now and not denied by the tenant that it does bear her signature. Rather she admitted her signature while appearing in the witness-box as R.W.1. She has further stated that "it is correct that mark A was rent after obtaining my signatures by my husband". Once the execution of the document is admitted by the tenant herself, then its late production could not be a ground for its rejection. Moreover, the tenant not only admitted her signatures thereon, but further stated that it was sent after obtaining her signatures by her husband to the landlady. Thus the only question which remains to be determined is as to whether the said document could be looked into in order to find out what was let out to the tenant. Admittedly, the said document could be looked into for a collateral purpose. The bar was only that it could not be received in evidence to prove the terms of the lease. The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in its judgment reported as S. Amar Singh v. Surinder Kaur, (1976 RCJ 47) AIR 1975 Madhya Pradesh 230, held that "Section 49 of the Registration Act does not say that an unregistered document which requires to be registered, shall not be received in evidence. The only bar is that such a document cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the property. As a matter of fact, the proviso to Section 49 clearly empowers the Courts to admit any unregistered document as evidence of collateral transaction not required to be registered. An unregistered lease deed is admissible to prove the nature and character of possession of the defendant and that Section 49 does not come in the way". Virtually the landlady wants to prove from the document Mark A that the entire house No. 3019, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh was let out to the tenant. Thus it is virtually the nature of possession on the premises in dispute, which is sought to be proved by these said documents (Mark A), which in view of the Full Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was admissible even if the document was unregistered. In the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is no-where held that such a purpose was not a collateral purpose, and, therefore, have no applicability to the facts of the present case.