NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. CHATURBHUJ DAS RIKHABH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dtd.25.3.2008 whereby the learned trial Court in a suit filed for eviction against the defendants - tenants held that the agreement dtd.4.5.1991 was a partition -deed which requires registration as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and in absence of the same, the said document was not admissible in evidence and therefore, the plaintiff Narendra Kumar could not have right to maintain the suit in question.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the plaintiff - petitioner submits relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh reported in, AIR 1988 (SC) 881 that the said family arrangement is merely a document regarding family arrangement between the members of the family and the same does not amount to partition and therefore, no registration of the said document was necessary in order to make it admissible in evidence. He further submits that question of title is not relevant in eviction matter under Rent Control Act and therefore, the learned trial Court has wrongly held that the suit cannot be maintained by the said Narendra Kumar.

(3.) A bare perusal of Annex.1 document clearly shows that the said agreement between the various family members on the stamp of Rs. 100/ -only refers understanding of various family members partitioning their ancestral property in the manner it has been done and according to said document, the said Narendra Kumar -present petitioner had the said property in question for which the eviction suit was filed by him. As the question of title is undoubtedly not relevant in eviction matter under the Rent Control Act, therefore, the learned Court below does not appear to be justified in rejecting the said evidence as inadmissible.