Satyapal Aneja vs Rajan Khanna

Brahma Singh Verma, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 9-11-2012 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge/Judge, S.C.C. (for short J.S.C.C.) in S.C.C. Suit No. 11 of 2009, whereby the impleadment application (paper no. 72C) moved by respondent no. 3 Krishna Kishore Khanna has been allowed, on the basis of the alleged agreement of tenancy created between the parties.

Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that during the pendency of the S.C.C. Suit before the learned J.S.C.C., applicant-Krishna Kishore Khanna (respondent no. 3 herein) moved an application with a prayer that he be arrayed as a defendant to the suit, alleging therein that the plaintiff had concealed important facts before the court; that between him and the plaintiff an agreement of tenancy was executed on 1-7-1985 and both the parties put their signatures thereon in token of its execution; that the applicant is tenant of the plaintiff and the plaintiff used to receive the rent from him. The applicant also alleged that the premises in question is in his occupation, therefore, if he is not permitted to be impleaded in the suit, his right and interest would be affected.

The plaintiff filed objection against the application moved by the applicant contending that the application is not legally maintainable; that the applicant has not given full particulars and he is not a necessary party to the suit and that the applicant is not the tenant in the shop in dispute.

Learned J.S.C.C. after hearing both the parties has allowed the application mainly on the ground that the photocopy of the alleged agreement of tenancy clearly shows that the applicant is the tenant of the disputed shop and ultimately allowed the application by his order dated 9-11-2012, which gave rise to the present revision.

It may be mentioned here that despite sufficient service, none of the respondents has put in appearance to contest the revision.

In this revision, learned counsel for the revisionist-plaintiff has contended that the learned J.S.C.C. has committed a manifest error of law in relying upon the alleged agreement of tenancy and without considering the fact whether the alleged tenancy was continuing or not on the basis of the so-called rent note.

In this revision, the revisionist has filed the alleged rent agreement between the parties as Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary affidavit.

From a bare perusal of the alleged agreement of tenancy between the parties shows that it is written on the stamp of Rs. 5-00, thus under stamped and is not a registered document. Moreover, even if this document may be relied upon for the sake of argument, in clause 11 of the document it is mentioned that the agreement is for a period of 11 months from the alleged date of its execution i.e. 1-7-1985. Therefore, the alleged agreement could not have any bearing after a lapse of 11 months, i.e. from 1-6-1986 onwards.

Since the document is under-stamped, therefore, it cannot be read in evidence for any purpose u/s 35 of the Stamp Act in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, . Besides, the copy of the extract of assessment register of Nagar Nigam Dehradun for the assessment years 1994-1999, which has been annexed as Annexure-3 goes to show that the property in question is in occupation of Sri Yashpal Anand, Sri Rajan Khanna, as tenants and the landlord himself. It does not show that Krishna Kishore Khanna was also in occupation of any portion of the property in question. Therefore, in any view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondent no. 3-Krishna Kishore Khanna, the applicant of impleadment application, was a tenant of the property in question. In this view of the matter, the learned J.S.C.C. has committed a manifest error of law in allowing the application of the respondent for his impleadment, on the strength of a document which cannot be read in evidence being under stamped, thereby holding that the rights and interest of the applicant would be affected by rejection of his application.

For the reasons above, the revision deserves to be allowed outright and the order under revision passed by the learned J.S.C.C. is liable to be set aside.

The revision is allowed. Costs easy. The impugned order 9-11-2012 is set aside. The application (paper no. 72-C) moved by the respondent no. 3-Krishna Kishore Khanna stands dismissed Interim order, if any, is vacated.