2016 (6) TMI 1242 - HC - Indian Laws

Surrender of tenancy - Held that - It is no doubt true that the plaintiff has pleaded in his plaint by way of amendment that the defendant No.2 was initially the tenant, who surrendered his tenancy on 15-4-1984, and with effect from 16-4-1984, the defendant No.1 was considered as the tenant in respect of the suit property. This was introduced in view of the stand taken by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their separate written statement that it is the defendant No.2 who is the tenant and not the defendant No.1. In fact, the Trial Court deleted the issue as to whether the defendant No.2 proves that the defendant No.1 alone is the tenant of the suit property. Since the defendant No.2 has surrendered such an issue, the consequential amendment of pleadings by the plaintiff loses its significance. It was, therefore, not necessary for the lower Appellate Court to decide the question as to whether the surrender of tenancy was proved or not. The substantial questions of law at Serial Nos.1 and 3 are, therefore, answered accordingly. Admissibility of document at Exhibit 50 - Held that - The non-registration of document would not come in the way of the Court to hold that the relationship of Landlord and Tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 in the present case has been established, coupled with the other evidence available on record. The substantial questions of law at Serial No.2 is answered accordingly.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the lease agreement (Ex.50) and whether it indicates surrender of tenancy by the appellant.
2. Admissibility of Ex.50 in evidence.
3. Reliability of the evidence provided by P.W.2 - Govindrao Dharam.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Lease Agreement (Ex.50) and Surrender of Tenancy:
The primary issue was whether the lease agreement (Ex.50) was sufficient to establish that the appellant surrendered his tenancy, making his father the tenant. The Trial Court initially found that the plaintiff failed to prove the creation of tenancy from 16-4-1984 and the arrears of rent. However, the lower Appellate Court reversed this finding, holding that the plaintiff had established the landlord-tenant relationship and validly terminated the tenancy. The Appellate Court relied on Ex.50 and other supporting evidence, including the testimony of the attesting witness, PW 2-Govindrao Deshkar. The court noted that the defendant No.1 did not refute the document by entering the witness-box, and the relationship between the father and son (defendant Nos.1 and 2) was considered significant.

2. Admissibility of Ex.50 in Evidence:
The second issue was the admissibility of Ex.50, an unregistered document. The court held that despite being unregistered, the document could be used for collateral purposes. It cited the Supreme Court's decision in *Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons and others*, which clarified that non-registration affects the validity of the document but does not negate the reality of the lease created by the parties' conduct. The court concluded that the landlord-tenant relationship was established through Ex.50 and other evidence.

3. Reliability of Evidence by P.W.2 - Govindrao Dharam:
The third issue was the reliability of the evidence provided by P.W.2, the attesting witness to Ex.50. The lower Appellate Court found his testimony credible, noting that he identified the signatures on the lease agreement and confirmed its execution in his presence. The court also considered the fact that defendant No.1 did not contest the document in court. The Trial Court's findings on rent payments and the lack of proof of Pagdi (Advance) payment by defendant No.2 further supported the Appellate Court's decision.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower Appellate Court's judgment. It held that the lease agreement (Ex.50) and other evidence sufficiently established the landlord-tenant relationship and the valid termination of tenancy. The document's admissibility for collateral purposes was upheld, and the reliability of the attesting witness's testimony was confirmed. The court found no substantial questions of law warranting further consideration and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

Additional Observations:
The judgment also addressed the appellant's counsel's request for the judge to recuse from future cases involving him, which the court found inappropriate and indicative of a growing trend among lawyers to influence judicial assignments. The court emphasized the importance of judicial independence and the impropriety of such requests, cautioning against the practice of bench-hunting and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

← Previous Next →