Whether the court should reject plaint of eviction suit at the stage of final argument?

Assailing the order, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rent agreement dated 01.01.2014 does not reveal that he is tenant in Flat No. 606. He submits that it simply reads “TWO ROOM SET on 6th FLOOR, OUT of SOCIETY” in the layout plan of Vaidant Height, Nand Puri-B, Near Mahima Group Apartment, Guru Circle, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur. 

5. It is trite that for consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, averments in the petition/plaint only are relevant and defence of the respondent/defendant is not to be seen at this stage.

6. Flat No. 606 is specifically mentioned in the eviction application under tenancy of the petitioner which, as per the order impugned dated 19.02.2020, has not been disputed even by the petitioner. Even otherwise also, the effect of the absence of flat number in the rent agreement is to be examined by the learned Rent Tribunal, in case any such objection exists in the reply filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for petitioner failed to point out any averment or omission in the eviction application which may invite application of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Even otherwise also, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC does not reveal any reason for filing it at such belated stage when the case was fixed for the final arguments. In these circumstances, it cannot be denied that the application was filed with malafide intention to delay the disposal of the eviction application. The order dated 19.02.2020 does not suffer any illegality or perversity warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In the High Court of Rajasthan

(Before Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.)

Anil Joshi  Vs Beejal Chopra 

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4602/2020

Decided on August 24, 2020

Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 1256

Print Page

Whether the court can infer that tenancy was for more than a year if there is a clause of increase of rent every year in rent note?

As per law laid down by this Court in Ram Kumar Das(supra) there shall be a presumption that the tenancy in the

present case is monthly tenancy. When the clauses of

rent note are cumulatively read, the intention of the

tenant is more than clear that tenancy was only

monthly tenancy, which could have been terminated on

default of payment of rent by 5th day of any month or

by notice of one month. The rent deed did not confer

any right to tenant to continue in the tenancy for a

period of more than one year nor it can be said that

tenancy was created for a period of more than one

year. Clause (9), which noticed the promise of the

tenant of payment of rent by increasing 10% each year

was a promise contingent on tenancy being continued

beyond one year but cannot make the tenancy year to

year or tenancy for a period of more than one year.

Present was a case of tenancy for which no period was

specified and looking to all the clauses

cumulatively, we find that the rent note was not such

kind of rent note, which requires compulsory

registration under Section 17(1)(d).

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVI L APPEA L NO. 2617 O F 2020

SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS. Vs SURINDER SINGH .

ASHO K BHUSHAN, J.

Dated:June 17, 2020.

Print Page

Whether it is permissible to lead evidence contrary to contents of rent note?

Learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. I has supported the impugned order. A persual of the rent note eloquently proves that the suit shop was taken on rent by Lalit Kumar alone. He has stated the fact that he is the proprietor of the firm M/s. Pankaj Machinery Mart because this fact has been mentioned by him below his name. The rent note was executed by him alone. The allegations made by the defendant that Lalit Kumar in fact negotiated the shop on rent for the business of the Joint Hindu Family as stated above, though being the eldest, rent note was executed by him. This allegation runs counter to the recitals made in the rent note executed by non-petitioner no. 2 defendant. The petitioners cannot be allowed to lead evidence contrary to the contents of the rent note. Rent can be paid by any person on behalf of the defendant and if the petitioners or any of them paid rent to the plaintiff in respect of the suit shop, it hardly proves that the petitioners are the tenants of the plaintiff. It can only be treated that they paid rent on behalf of Lalit Kumar.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Civ. Revn. Petn. No. 181 of 1998

Decided On: 20.04.1998

Bhupal Singh Vs.  Bhagwati Prasad and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P.C. Jain, J.

Citation:AIR 1999 Raj 41

Print Page

Whether unregistered rent note can be used for collateral purpose?

It is true that the non-registration of the rent note does not debar the use of a document that is compulsorily registerable for collateral purposes but that aspect would in the instant case pale into insignificance keeping in view the state of pleadings on the question of month of tenancy and the legal implications thereof.

Supreme Court of India

Shibani Basu vs Sandip Ray on 26 November, 2010

Bench: Markandey Katju, T.S. Thakur

Citation;AIR 2011 SC 509

Print Page