ROOP SINGH Vs. MURTI SRI RADHA KRISHAN JI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord's eviction petition was ordered by the Rent Controller and confirmed in appeal. The ground of eviction was nonpayment of arrears of rent from 01.01.1980. The defence by the tenant was that property itself had been purchased by him from the original landlord-cum- owner, Sh. Sant Ram and there existed no form of relationship as landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent.

(2.) THE Courts below have considered the fact from the light of evidence adduced on behalf of the landlord, which is said to be a Mandir, that the property had been orally relinquished by Sant Ram in its favour and that the property tax register also stands only in the name of the Mandir. The documentary proof was sought to be advanced to the effect that rents had been collected from several tenants in respect of row of construction, which the Mandir owned and in respect of the petition mentioned premise. AW-4, Des Raj had given evidence that rent receipts had been issued by the cashier of the Mandir to various tenants including the respondent. The counterfoils which were filed and marked contained the handwriting of the cashier, which was identified by the witness.

(3.) THE Courts below was swayed by the fact that the original owner -cum-landlord, Sant Ram had disclaimed any interest in the property and had also given a letter in writing that he was gifting the property to the Mandir. The issue, which the Courts below have failed to see is that in relation to an immovable property of whose value was more than Rs. 100, no transfer of title is possible except through a registered instrument. Section 17 (1) (a) of the Registration Act refers to "instrument of gift of immovable property" as requiring registration. Section 49 of the Registration Act states that no document which is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Act could be received as evidence to affect any immoveable property or received as evidence to any transaction affecting such property unless it has been registered. An oral release or a written letter of an original owner acknowledging another person as the owner has no value in the eye of law. A transfer of title to immovable property could never be made by mere admission. The Supreme Court has also in a decision in Ambika Prasad Thakur v. Ram Ekpal Rai AIR 1996 SC 605 held that an admission cannot create title in respect of immovable property. Indeed, if title could be merely transferred by admission, then there is no requirement of either the provisions of the Stamp Act or even the Registration Act. There is no mode of transfer possible other than how the law envisages that a transfer could be effected.