Civil Revision No.476 of 1997 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.476 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.02.2009 Roop Singh .............. Petitioner Vs. Murti Sri Radha Krishan Ji ............Respondent Present: Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The landlord's eviction petition was ordered by the Rent Controller and confirmed in appeal. The ground of eviction was non- payment of arrears of rent from 01.01.1980. The defence by the tenant was that property itself had been purchased by him from the original landlord-cum-owner, Sh. Sant Ram and there existed no form of relationship as landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. 2. The Courts below have considered the fact from the light of evidence adduced on behalf of the landlord, which is said to be a Mandir, that the property had been orally relinquished by Sant Ram in its favour and that the property tax register also stands only in the name of the Mandir. The documentary proof was sought to be advanced to the effect that rents had been collected from several Civil Revision No.476 of 1997 (O&M) -2- tenants in respect of row of construction, which the Mandir owned and in respect of the petition mentioned premise. AW-4, Des Raj had given evidence that rent receipts had been issued by the cashier of the Mandir to various tenants including the respondent. The counterfoils which were filed and marked contained the handwriting of the cashier, which was identified by the witness. 3. The contention of the respondent was that the property had been purchased under a registered sale deed dated 09.06.1981 from the original landlord-Sant Ram and that he was himself the owner of premises. The Courts below found the property tax register containing reference to the Mandir as the owner as a significant factor to establish that the Mandir was the landlord. It also found from the fact that in a row of buildings which the Mandir owned, all tenants were paying the rents and recognized the Mandir as the landlord but only the tenant was disputing its ownership. The Courts below reasoned that in an action for eviction under the Rent Control Act, the landlord was merely a person, who is entitled to receive rent and need not be owner of the premises. While no exception could be taken to the proposition stated as such, in a case where respondent pleads ownership of the premises from a person who has admitted to the landlord by both parties, then the consideration whether the jural relationship existed between the petitioner and respondent cannot be effectively made without reference to the defence by a tenant of transfer of title in his own favour by the admitted landlord. 4. The Courts below was swayed by the fact that the original owner -cum-landlord, Sant Ram had disclaimed any interest in the Civil Revision No.476 of 1997 (O&M) -3- property and had also given a letter in writing that he was gifting the property to the Mandir. The issue, which the Courts below have failed to see is that in relation to an immovable property of whose value was more than Rs.100, no transfer of title is possible except through a registered instrument. Section 17 (1) (a) of the Registration Act refers to “instrument of gift of immovable property” as requiring registration. Section 49 of the Registration Act states that no document which is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Act could be received as evidence to affect any immoveable property or received as evidence to any transaction affecting such property unless it has been registered. An oral release or a written letter of an original owner acknowledging another person as the owner has no value in the eye of law. A transfer of title to immovable property could never be made by mere admission. The Supreme Court has also in a decision in Ambika Prasad Thakur Vs. Ram Ekpal Rai AIR 1996 SC 605 held that an admission cannot create title in respect of immovable property. Indeed, if title could be merely transferred by admission, then there is no requirement of either the provisions of the Stamp Act or even the Registration Act. There is no mode of transfer possible other than how the law envisages that a transfer could be effected. 5. Admittedly, no rent was paid from 01.01.1980. The sale itself is made in favour of the tenant on 09.06.1986. Even the so- called counterfoils do not contain the signature of the tenant. A self- serving entry by a cashier on an assumption that the temple was the landlord cannot invest such character in the landlord to merit an action Civil Revision No.476 of 1997 (O&M) -4- for eviction. The Courts below had committed an eggregeous error in upholding the claim of the landlord and ordering eviction. The orders of the Courts below are set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. But in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 18, 2009 Pankaj*