- (1.) The shop, in dispute was owned by one Devat Ram, who died on November 2, 1959. He had a son Madan Lal and two grandsons Parshotam Dass and Chander Parkash from his son Madan Lal. Before his death, Devat Ram executed a will in favour of his two grandsons and the wife of Parshotam Dass. Consequently, there was litigation between Madan Lal on one side and his sons and the wife of Parshotam Dass on the other, regarding the succession to the property left by Devat Ram by will. Ultimately, the dispute was settled by a compromise in July, 1969, on the basis of which the shop, in dispute, fell to the share of Madan Lal who sold the same in favour of Gulab Singh, respondent, in 1970. The said Gulab Singh filed an ejectment application in the Court of the Rent Controller, Rohtak, against Nand Lal and the present revision petitioner on November 28, 1970, on the ground that the arrears of rent from January 19, 1970, upto the date of the ejectment application had not been paid and that the shop, in dispute, had been sublet by Nand Lal, tenant, to the present revision petitioner, Gopi Chand. The eviction application was contested by the present revision petitioner whereas Nand Lal, respondent, admitted the contentions of the landlord. The present revision petitioner alleged in his written statement that the shop, in dispute, was never given on rent to Nand Lal, that he was in fact, the tenant through out and that he had been paying rent to Chander Parkash one of the sons of Madan Lal and that he had paid the rent to Chander Parkash upto May 31, 1970 It was also urged that the eviction application was collusive. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether petitioner is landlord of the premises in dispute? 2. Whether Nand Lal, respondent No. 1, has sublet the premises, in dispute,to Gopi Chand, respondent No. 2 ? 3. Whether the petition is collusive ? If so, to what effect ? 4. Relief. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition holding that Gulab Singh was proved to be the landlord, that Nand Lal executed the rent deed, but never occupied the shop, in dispute, that Gopi Chand was not the sub-tenant, but he was the tenant of the landlord. Appeal was filed by the landlord which was accepted and it was held that the shop, in dispute, had been given on lease to Nand Lal, respondent, and thereafter it was sublet by him to Gopi Chand, the present revision petitioner. The present revision petition has been filed by Gopi Chand challenging the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly contended that the lease deed , Exhibit A.W. 4/1, dated June 23, 1955 executed by Nand Lal in favour of Devat Ram, the original owner of the shop, in dispute, is not admissible in evidence as it is unregistered and that a perusal of this lease deed shows that one of its terms was that the yearly rent of Rs. 162/- has been reserved and as such, the same required registration under section 17 of the Registration Act, I have perused this lease need carefully. It is in Urdu language. The relevant portion of same relating to the terms and conditions of the lease when translation into English read as follows : "Now, I have taken the above-mentioned shop for one year for carrying on my own shop. It has been taken on lease for a period from Asar Sudi 2, 2012 to Jeth Sudi 1, 2013 and an annual rent of Rs. 162/- has been fixed. The stipulation is that an advance rent for three months, amounting Rs. 40 and 8 annas has been paid. The remaining teat I shall continue to pay quarterly. After the expiry of the said period, I shall vacate the shop." According to the learned counsel, the above-mentioned terms of the lease should be interpreted to mean that the rent was reserved annually. I do not find any force is the same. All the terns and conditions of the lease hive to be read together when so read it clear that the shop, in dispute, was given on lease for one year. The rent for the entire year was fixed at Rs. 162/- out of which three months rent was paid in advance and the tenant, Nand Lal, promised to pay the remaining rent every three months. By no stretch of reasoning these terms can be construed to mean that annual rent had been reserved. Besides, no objection regarding the admissibility of the said lease deed for want of registration was taken when the lease deed was admitted into evidence for the purpose of proving its execution. Furthermore, it was even admitted by the petitioner as P.W. 4, in his statement that the rent deed had been executed by Nand Lal, respondent, in the year 1955, in favour of the original landlord Devat Ram The learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the definition of 'reservation' as given in Halsbury' s Laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 23, at page 436. It says "The term 'reservation' in its strict legal sense is only properly admitted of services to be rendered by the tenant such as paying rent. The word 'reserving' is construed as making an exception or the word may imply merely that the grant or reserves to himself some equivalent for the use of the land, such as rent or services in the nature of rent." I have not been able to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel as to how this definition of the word "reservation" or 'reserving', as reproduced above, is helpful to, the petitioner. Reliance has also been placed on Ala Muhammad and others V. Shankar Das and others, 1925 AIR(Lah) 491(D.B.) In Ala Muhammad's case, , a suit for possession of a house had been filed on the ground that the same had been given on lease and that the tenant had failed to pay rent for three years and refused to vacate the house. One of the question involved was whether the leases produced were admissible in evidence or not. It was held by the District Judge that they were admissible in evidence and the suit was decreed. In appeal, in the High Court, the learned Single Judge in Chambers also bold that the lease in question was not a lease reserving an annual rent. The letters patent appeal was, however, accepted by the Division Bench and it was held as under : "Now the lease does fix Rs. 1-8-0 and not Rs. 1-12-0 as the annual rent, though it goes on to say that the rent shall be payable half-yearly. This, however, does not alter the fact that the lease does reserve a yearly rent. Moreover, it does not appear that it was only for one year. It was for an indefinite time so long as the rent was paid at the end of each year. As the lease fixes a yearly rent, we consider that its registration was obligatory under section 17 of the Registration Act". It will be clear from the above that the Division Bench had come to the conclusion that the lease was not only for one year and that the same was for an indefinite time so long as the rent was paid at the end of each year. The facts of the present ease are entirely different, as in this case, the lease period is not more than one year and the rent was to be paid after the expiry or every three months. Under the circumstances, I hold that the lease deed did not require registration and it was rightly admitted into evidence.
(3.) The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the lease deed, Exhibit A.W. 4/1 was executed by Nand Lal in favour of the owner of the shop in the year 1955, but in fact, Nand Lal never entered into possession and the lease deed was only a parer transaction. For this purpose, he has taken me through the evidence adduced by the parties The case of the petitioner is that he is a tenant of the shop, in dispute, directly under Chander Parkash one of the sons of Madan Lal and that he had been paying rent to him and obtaining receipts therefor from him, but be did not produce the receipts in evidence; nor did he produce the account books which were in his possession according to his statement. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner did have the receipts regarding payment of rent in his possession and that he had delivered the same to his, counsel when the case was pending in the Court of the Rent Controller, but the same had been lost. According to him, the account books are still in possession of the petitioner though they mere not produced. During the pendency of the case in the Court of the Rent Controller, at no stage, the plea was taken on behalf of the petitioner that the rent receipts had been lost; nor was any request made for permission to produce secondary evidence in that regard. On the other hand, the landlord-respondent produced both oral and documentary evidence including the statement of Nand Lal, tenant, himself to show that the shop, in dispute, had originally been given on lease by the original landlord Devat Ram to Nand Lal in the year 1955 and that Nand Lal remained in possession of the same for a number of years and thereafter this shop came in possession of the petitioner Gopi Chand. The learned Appellate Authority, Rohtak, has considered the entire evidence in detail and came to a firm conclusion that the shop, in dispute, had been sublet to Gopi Chand, petitioner, by Nand Lal, I do not find and infirmity in this finding as the same is based on appreciation of evidence.;