AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj K. Tiwari, J
This is tenants writ petition against the order dated 07.07.2018 passed by First Additional District Judge, Nainital in an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act [hereinafter referred to as "Act No.13 of 1972"].
Respondent, who is the landlord, filed an application seeking release of the tenanted premises situate at Ayarpata, Mallital, Nainital from the petitioners under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act No.13 of 1972.
After hearing both sides, landlord's release application numbered as RCC No.19 of 2009, was allowed by learned Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 16.12.2015.
Petitioners, feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act No.13 of 1972, which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No.01 of 2016.
Before the Appellate Court, petitioners filed an application under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for impounding the Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.06.1980, referred to by the landlord in paragraph No.1 of his release application.
It was contended by the petitioners in the said application that since the landlord derives title based on the said document and the said document is an unregistered document and no stamp duty has been paid thereupon, therefore, request was made to impound the said document and refer the same to Collector for charging appropriate stamp duty/penalty.
Learned Appellate Court/First Additional District Judge, Nainital rejected the said application of the petitioner vide order dated 07.07.2018, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned Court below has given cogent reasons for rejecting petitioner's application and in the humble opinion of this Court, there is no scope for interference in the matter.
Law is settled that a family arrangement can be oral also, in which case registration is not necessary. Registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing, but there also, a distinction has to be drawn between (i) a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and (ii) a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made, either for the purpose of recording or for information to the Court for making necessary mutation.
This aspect has been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale and others vs.Deputy Director of Consolidation and others reported in (1976) 3 SCC 119 and also in Narendra Kante Vs. Anuradha Kante and others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 77.
The Memorandum of Family Settlement is on record as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, in which there are four parties namely Sri Chandra Lal Sah and his three sons namely Shri Anup Sah, Shri Nirmal Sah and Shri Rajesh Sah. It is mentioned in the said document that a family arrangement was arrived at between the parties much earlier and the document was prepared for record, later. It is also mentioned in the said document that property is a joint Hindu family property and three sons of Sri Chandra Lal Sah acquired independent right by birth in the said property equal to that of their father, Sri Chandra Lal Sah.
Thus, it is apparent that the said document does not create or extinguish any right, title or interest over immovable property, but it is only a memorandum of family arrangement, which has taken place earlier.
In a release application filed before Prescribed Authority or in an eviction suit filed before Small Cause Court, the landlord (plaintiff) is required to plead and prove only two things to enable him to claim a decree for release / eviction namely (i) that there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and the defendant. (ii) The grounds on which plaintiff landlord had sought defendant tenant's eviction under the Rent Control Act exists.
When these two things are proved, the eviction suit succeeds. Thus, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for decision of the release application or eviction suit as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Ranbir Singh Vs. Asharfi Lal reported in (1995) 6 SCC 580.
Petitioner is trying to challenge title of the landlord in proceedings under Section 21(1) (a) of Act No.13 of 1972. Since, none of the party to the family settlement has challenged title of the landlord, therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to raise any objection against the family settlement.
In such view of the matter, there is no force in the writ petition. The same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.