S.K. Gangele, J. - (1.)It is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 13 -A/99 reversing the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 76 -A/92 dated 9 -9 -1999.
(2.)This second appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 24 -8 -2005 on the following substantial questions of law:
WHETHER the finding recorded by the Lower Appellate Court regarding absence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant ignoring the rent note is perverse and is not binding in this appeal?

Whether the defendant having admitted the execution of rent note and there being absence of pleading regarding coercion in the written statement the Court has illegally held the rent note as not proved and the finding of Lower Appellate Court is vitiated?

The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction pleading that he was the owner of the suit house which was rented out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/ - on 1 -4 -1989. For the aforesaid purpose a rent note was executed. He further pleaded that defendant did not pay rent hence a notice was sent to the defendant on 20 -4 -1992 and the tenancy was terminated w.e.f. 30 -4 -1992. In spite of receipt of notice the defendant did not pay the rent neither vacated the suit house and the defendant also challenged the ownership of the plaintiff.

The defendant in his written statement denied the existence of landlord and tenant relationship. He further pleaded that he had not paid any rent to the plaintiff neither any rent note was executed. He specifically pleaded that the so called rent note was bogus and it had never been executed by him. In special pleadings the defendant further stated that the plaintiff and defendant were relatives i.e. maternal -uncle and nephew (Mama -Bhanja) and they had been doing business of hotel jointly in the name of "Milan Hotel". Twenty years before plaintiff had agreed to separate the defendant from the business of hotel and gave him a plot over which he constructed a room and since then he had been residing in the said room.

The trial Court after appreciation of evidence held that plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises and there was a landlord -tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and because defendant did not pay the rent of the premises granted a decree of eviction in favour of the plaintiff. However, the lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court with regard to landlord and tenant relationship and allowed the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court in reversing the findings of landlord and tenant relationship recorded by the trial Court are perverse. The defendant himself stated in his evidence that he executed the rent note, hence there is no question that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. Contrary to this, learned counsel for the respondent -defendant has submitted that the lower Appellate Court has recorded the findings on the basis of cogent evidence and looking to the over all evidence of the case there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant.

From the pleadings of the parties as narrated in the judgment, it is clear that the plaintiff pleaded that the suit house was rented out by him to the defendant on 1 -4 -1989 on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/ - and the defendant executed a rent note to this effect. He further pleaded that defendant paid rent at the rate of Rs. 300/ - per month to the plaintiff and for the aforesaid purpose receipts were issued to the defendant. In his evidence he deposed the same thing but he also admitted the fact that he did not file the receipts of the rent which were issued in favour of the defendant in para 7 of his cross -examination. Further in para 9 of his cross -examination he admitted the fact that the electricity connection in the house was not in his name. Other witnesses P.W. 2, Ashok Kumar and (PW -3) Gopal Sahu have deposed that the rent note was executed and signed by the defendant before them. Except this no other oral evidence has been produced. Copy of the rent note has also been filed. Aforesaid rent note is for eleven months from 1 -4 -1989 to 28 -2 -1990 and the rate of rent is Rs. 300/ - per month and there is signature of defendant on the rent note. A copy of the reply of the notice has been filed as Ex. D -1 and copy of the Survey Register of the property tax report with regard to house of the plaintiff has been filed as Ex. D -2 and the copy of the voters list for the year 1980 has been filed as Annexure D -3. The defendant examined himself in support of his case. He deposed that earlier he had been doing the business of Hotel in the name of 'Milan Hotel' with the plaintiff because he came from Punjab and the plaintiff is his Mama (maternal -uncle). Thereafter in the year 1972 he separated from the business of hotel and in that context the plaintiff granted him a plot over which he constructed a room. The rent note was executed under duress and at that time he was under threat. He accepted the signing of the rent note but specifically deposed that he had not paid any rent of the house. He also stated that electric connection was in his name and he had been paying the electricity charges and his name was recorded in the voters list of the year 1980 and the address was of the present house. Apart from this, he also stated that the plaintiff in his property tax details mentioned that there were seven tenants of the plaintiff. Names have been given in Ex. D -2 and in the said list name of the plaintiff was not mentioned. The aforesaid fact has been denied by the plaintiff. After considering the entire evidence the lower Appellate Court has held that there was no landlord -tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. However, the trial Court has held existence of landlord -tenant relationship only on the basis of rent -note and also on the basis of the fact that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit accommodation.

In my opinion, the lower Appellate Court has rightly reversed the findings of the trial Court after considering all the oral and documentary evidence mentioned above. The trial Court has not at all considered the documentary evidence viz. Exs. D -1, D -2 and D -3 and the fact that the plaintiff did not produce any rent receipt of the house and the electricity connection of the suit house was in the name of the defendant and in the year of 1980 voters list the address of the defendant mentioned was of the suit house. It is well settled principle of law that a party can deny the existence of landlord -tenant relationship and also the execution of a document and can always lead evidence in support of the pleadings. In the present case the defendant denied the fact that there was landlord -tenant relationship. He specifically pleaded that he signed the rent note under duress and it was a bogus one and also led evidence in support of his case including documentary evidence including the copy of the Property Tax Register and voters list. In the property Tax Register the plaintiff did not mention the name of the defendant as a tenant. However, he mentioned names of seven tenants. Apart from this, the plaintiff in his own statement admitted the fact that the electricity connection of the suit accommodation was in the name of the defendant. He also did not produce any rent receipt although he pleaded the same in his plaint. In the year 1980 name of the defendant has been recorded in the voters list and his address is mentioned that of suit accommodation. In such circumstances, in my opinion, it is clear that there was no landlord -tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh and others vs. Raj Kumar Aneja and others, : (2002) 2 SCC 445, has held as under with regard to right of a party to deny the existence of landlord -tenant relationship and also execution of lease deed:

It is true that in spite of the availability of a registered deed of lease executed between the owners and Goyal, the occupants are not debarred from taking a plea that the transaction between the owner and Goyal was not what it apparently appears to be just by reading of the lease deed. The occupants, by raising a plea which they have taken in the written statements, are not proposing to put in issue and let in oral evidence of the terms of the lease deed. They are also not raising a plea or adducing oral evidence for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from the terms of the lease deed. They are not parties to the lease deed. Therefore, sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 are not attracted. The occupants are impeaching the outward validity of the lease deed by submitting that what has been described on paper is not the real intention of the parties to do; the lease deed and the transaction spelled out by it was a sham or fictitious transaction not intended to be acted upon, rather intended to overcome or avoid the effect of the rent control legislation. It is permissible to take such a plea and adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The plea can be taken though the onus would lay on the shoulders of the party taking such a plea. To discharge the onus, direct evidence may or may not be available and it would be permissible to draw an inference from tell tale circumstances. However, the inference to be drawn from the circumstances should be an irresistible one and not merely a matter of conjectures and surmises.

In my opinion, the defendant has discharged his burden to prove the aforesaid facts. The findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court are as per law. Hence, I answer the substantial question of law against the appellant by holding that the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court are not perverse and merely on the basis of execution of the rent note it cannot be held that there was a landlord -tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant because it was executed under duress and there is sufficient pleadings in the written statement filed by the defendant with regard to duress, coercion and the defendant has clearly pleaded that the rent note was a bogus one.

(3.)Consequently, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.