Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
S.K. Agarwal vs M. Venkateswarlu on 15 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)ALD186
Author: G. Rohini
Bench: G. Rohini
ORDER Rohini, J.
1. The defendant in OS No. 1148 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the 1st Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad is the revision petitioner.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the unregistered rental agreement sought to be marked by the defendant is admissible in evidence.
3. The facts, which are not in dispute and relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue in question are as follows:
4. The respondent herein filed OS No. 1148 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the 1st Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad seeking a decree for recovery of possession of the suit schedule premises, for arrears of rent and for past and future mesne profits. The specific averments in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule premises and that the defendant is the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/-. He also pleaded that it is a month to month tenancy and that a rental agreement has been executed and the same is un-registered. It is also pleaded that since it is misplaced the same could not be filed along with the plaint. According to the plaintiff, by notice dated 20-4-1998 the tenancy has been duly terminated and the defendant was called upon to vacate the suit premises by 31-4-1998. Since the defendant failed to comply with the same the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
5. The defendant filed written statement admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant; however, he disputed the quantum of rent and the plaint averment that it is a month to month tenancy. He pleaded that as per the rental agreement dated 22-1-1993 executed by the plaintiff he is entitled to continue in possession of the suit schedule premises for a period of nine years with a clause for further extension by mutual consent. Hence according to the defendant the plaintiff is not entitled to terminate the tenancy before the expiry of nine years mentioned in the rental agreement, and therefore, the suit being contrary to the conditions under the rental agreement cannot be maintained and the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
6. After the issues are settled, the plaintiff completed the evidence on his side and the defendant got himself examined as DW1 on 21-1-2000. During his evidence, the defendant sought to mark the lease deed dated 22-1-1993, however, the Court below disallowed the same on the ground that the unregistered rental agreement for a period of nine years is inadmissible in evidence. In the said circumstances, the defendant has come up with the present revision petition contending that the Court below is not justified in not permitting him to mark the rental agreement dated 22-1-1993 in support of his case.
7. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.
8. Sri C. V. Bhaskar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the rental agreement was impounded and necessary stamp duty and penalty have been paid, it is admissible in evidence. The learned Counsel further contends that the Court below failed to appreciate that the document though unregistered is admissible in evidence at least for collateral purpose, and therefore, the Court below ought to have permitted the defendant to mark the same.
9. On the other hand, Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the said document cannot be marked even for collateral purpose since in the instant case the tenancy is not in dispute, and there is no need to prove the nature of possession of the defendant.
10. Admittedly the document in question, which is a rental agreement is for a period of nine years. It is unregistered and initially it was also unstamped. Subsequently it is impounded and necessary stamp duty and penalty have been paid. Hence the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though it is unregistered it is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose.
11. It is not well settled that an unstamped document is not admissible in evidence and cannot be looked into for any purpose, but an unregistered document is admissible in evidence for a collateral purpose. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and the proviso thereunder which states that an unregistered document may be received as evidence of any collateral transaction, may be usefully extracted hereunder.
"No document required by Section 17 or by any provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered shall-
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein; or
(b) confer any power to adopt; or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered :
Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act, or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument."
12. A plan reading of the proviso to Section 49 makes it clear that an unregistered document can be received as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. In other words, it can be said that such an unregistered document is admissible to the extent of proving the character of possession of the person who holds under the said document. Except to the extent of the said purpose it cannot be looked into for the purpose of relying upon the terms of the document or for the purpose of determining the rights and liabilities of the parties to the document since the same is not permissible even under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. The question whether the purpose for which an unregistered document was sought to be marked is a collateral purpose as permitted under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act has to be determined on the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
13. In the instant case the document in question is an unregistered rental agreement for a period of nine years. As per proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act it is admissible in evidence to the extent of proving the nature of possession of the tenant as can be established by any other evidence than by a registered instrument. Thus said document can be looked into to show that the possession of the defendant is that of a tenant and permissive in nature.
14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that since he is disputing the quantum of rent as claimed in the plaint, the document can be received in evidence at least for the purpose of proving the quantum of rent agreed between the parties, which can be taken as a collateral purpose. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The duration of the tenancy as well as the quantum of rent agreed between the parties are the terms of the document, which is required to be registered. Therefore the same cannot be taken as collateral purpose and cannot be looked into for proving the rights claimed by the defendant. In the normal circumstances the defendant would have been permitted to rely upon the document in question for the purpose of proving the nature of his possession, which can be termed as collateral purpose and is permissible under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. But in the present case the plaint averment that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule premises as tenant has been admitted by the defendant in his written statement. Therefore there is no collateral purpose as such and the document in question cannot be received as evidence ofany collateral transaction. Since the defendant did not dispute the title of the plaintiff and admitted that his possession is permissive in nature under the document in question, it is not necessary to receive the document in evidence even for collateral purpose.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Court below has rightly refused to receive the document in question in evidence and there is no illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction vested under law.
16. Accordingly the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.