Ilam Chand vs Sumer Singh

Ashok Bhan, J.—Tenant petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has filed the present revision petition. The facts giving rise to the revision petition are as under :-

Landlord-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed an ejectment petition on 7.10.1985 claiming arrears of rent of the rate of Rs. 800/- per month with effect from 29.7.1985, and on the ground of personal necessity. Admittedly rent prior to 29.7.1985 was Rs. 215/- per month, With effect from 29.7.1985, the rent was raised to Rs. 800/- per month vide rent note Exhibit P/1.

Tenant filed the written statement. The plea regarding personal, necessity was controverted ; regarding the rent, it was stated that the monthly rent initially was Rs. 120/- per month which was subsequently raised to Rs. 140/- and later on further increased to Rs. 215/- from January 1965. Increase of Rs. 800/- with effect from 29.7.1985, was denied and it was stated that as a matter of fact document Exhibit P/l incrasing the rent to Rs. 800/- has been got executed from him under threat and duress. Tenant tendered a total sum of Rs. 822/- on account of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 215/- per month with proportionate costs and interest. The tendered rent was accepted by the landlord under protest and maintained the ground of non-payment of rent.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute on the grounds mentioned in the petition ? OPA.

What is the rate of rent ? OP. Parties.

Relief.

The trial Court decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and held that the allegations regarding the execution of rent note having been'' obtained under duress were misplaced and that the rent of the premises was proved to be Rs. 800/-per month. Consequently, both the issues were decided in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. The ejectment application was accepted and the tenant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question by 21.12.1986 Aggrieved by this order, the tenant filed appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed.

Primarily the point for consideration in this case is as to whether the rent note Exhibit P/1 is the duly executed document or not. If it is, then admittedly the rent tendered by the tenant is insufficient and thus liable to be ejected On the ground of personal necessity, lower appellate Court had recorded a finding that there is no acceptable evidence on the file to prove personal necessity of the landlord for the premises in dispute.

I have heard the tenant who appeared in person as well as counsel for the landlord at length.

The impugned rent note Exhibit P-1 was scribed by Mai Chand (PW-2) and witnessed by Mohinder Pal (PW-3) and Ved Parkash (PW-2). Scribe Mai Chand (PW-2) and Mohinder Pal (PW-2) attesting witnesses have stated that the rent note Exhibit P/l was drawn at the instance of tenant Ilam Chand and he put his signatures to it after accepting its contents to be true and correct in the presence of the: witnesses. Document Exhibit P/l the rent note, has been entered at Serial No. 60 of the register of the scribe maintained for the purpose Mai Chand (PW-2) further stated that the stamp paper for the rent note was also purchased from him by the tenant. PW-3 Mohinder Singh one of the marginal witnesses of the rent note has also testified to the execution of the rent note by Ilam Chand in favour of Sumer '' Singh in his presence. Sumer Singh who stepped in the witness box as PW-1 also deposed regarding the execution of the rent note Exhibit P/l by the tenant in his favour of his free volition and of his own accord. The other marginal witnesses DW-2 Ved Parkash appeared against the landlord and stated in his testimony that the rent note Exhibit P/l was got executed by the landlord under duress from the tenant.

So far as the execution of the document itself is concerned the same has not been denied by the tenant and DW-2 Ved Parkash'' The only point made out is that it was not voluntary and had been obtained under duress with the help of police. Tenant alleged that the document Exhibit P/l was got executed from him fraudulently and under duress. It is well settled law that fraud or duress has to be proved by the party which alleges it. Tenant has failed to prove by leading cogent evidence that the alleged fraud or duress was played upon him in order to force him to sign the rent note Exhibit P/l. A reading of the statement of the tenant would show that he has not told the truth in the Court. Immediately after the execution of the rent note Exhibit P/l, no complaint was lodged by the tenant either in Court or in the police station. He did not bring this fact to the notice of any person immediately ; he stated that he was summoned to the police station at the instance of the landlord twice/ thrice but failed to name any of the police officials . who summoned him for this act. Tenant is an educated person belonging to the medical profession. Had he been treated in the manner in which he alleges he was treated then he would certainly have lodged some report/complaint to any of the higher authorities which he did not do. Hence the plea that the rent note Exhibit P/l was got executed fraudulently or under duress does not stand proved ; further the tenant in para 2 of his reply averred that the landlord had been pressurising him to raise the rent to Rs. 800/- per month from which be started pestering him. He also alleged that the landlord alongwith certain persons had come over to the shop to seek his forcible dispossession on which the persons present there had suggested to him to get out of the problem by executing the rent note. From these pleadings; it becomes evident that the tenant had executed the rent note Exhibit P/l to buy peace with his landlord but the same would not amount the rent note having been got executed under duress.

Tenant further argued that there was no reason to increase the rent of the premises in dispute four-folds when no additional facilities were provided by the landlord. It is admitted by both the hands that no additional facilities are shown to have been provided to the tenant as a consideration for enhancement of the rent but in a situation like this, the tenant is well advised to see whether to agree to the increase of rent or not, but once having agreed to raise the rent, the remedy open to him may be to move the Rent Controller concerned for fixation of the fair rent.

Tenant further argued that apprehending the mischief at the hands of the landlord, he served notice Exhibit R/l upon the landlord "in which he had asked the landlord to desist from putting pressure from him to increase the rent. Both the courts below have found as a fact that this notice Exhibit R/l was in fact not issued. Both the courts below have found that Exhibit R/l is the original letter and not a copy of the original and that the original letter could not be in possession of the tenant which he had sent to the landlord. I agree with the findings recorded by the Courts below on this point and hold that in fact letter Exhibit R/l was never issued by the tenant to the landlord and the same was a falsely created letter to nulify the effect of rent note Exhibit P/l.

In rent note Exhibit P/1, it is mentioned that the possession was delivered back to the landlord and further that there was no pressure brought to bear upon the tenant in executing the rent note. It was submitted on behalf of the tenant that the wording of the rent note is rather unusual and goes to show that the same was got executed from the tenant under duress. There is no doubt that in the rent note Exhibit P/1 it is mentioned that the possession was delivered back to the landlord and further that the rent note was being executed without any pressure having been put upon the tenant but in my view the same is immaterial because sometime it is the method of writing of an individual petition writer. Since the rent was being increased considerably, the petition writer put these words to say as if a new rent note was being executed voluntarily at the agreed rate of rent. The words in the rent note by itself would not prove any undue pressure having been put on the tenant to execute the rent note Ex. P/1.

The next submission of the tenant was that the document Ex P/1 is inadmissible in evidence and requires registration''. According to Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, only those documents which require to be registered are there creating lease from year to year. Since the rent note Ex. P/ 1 did not create a lease from ,'' year to year, the same did not require the registration and was thus . admissible in evidence.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.