Ranjit Singh vs Ashok Kumar

K. Kannan, J.—The tenant is in revision against the order refusing the leave to defend. The landlord had filed the petition for eviction on the basis of rent note executed by the tenant in his favour and his brother and being an NRI returning to India, he required the premises and sought for eviction of premises.

The leave was sought on the ground that he was a tenant only under the landlord's brother and the landlord had actually relinquished his rights in the property in favour of his brother. As regards the rent note, his contention was that the document was inadmissible in evidence. The landlord placed on record the municipal assessment of the property in the name of the landlord, while the tenant placed reliance on the revenue entry, which did not contain the name of the landlord.

The Rent Controller found that the petitioner, who was a co-owner of the premises, had let the premises to the tenant is entitled to maintain the petition and the so-called relinquishment by the petitioner as contended by the tenant had no basis. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the rent note itself was denied by him and there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant and at least in view of the defence taken by him denying that there was any landlord and tenant relationship, leave ought to have been granted to him.

The approach of the Rent Controller, in my view, suffers from no vice to be susceptible for challenge in revision. The denial of relationship of landlord and tenant comes but in an evasive fashion in this case. The tenant does not deny the execution of the rent note itself but has only contended that the rent note is inadmissible. It is not clear as to how the document is inadmissible for even it was to require registration, character of possession of the property is invariably a collateral purpose excepted u/s 49 of the Registration Act to the legislative mandate relating to compulsory registration of documents provided u/s 17 of the Registration Act. The contention by him that in a family settlement, the right to the property was relinquished by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Courts below for there could not be any oral relinquishment in respect of the immovable property of whose value is more than Rs. 100/-, otherwise than through a registered instrument. The defence, which the tenant was making was hallow and the rejection of the leave was appropriate. There is no scope for intervention in revision and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs.