IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2609 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 07, 2010 Satwant Kaur …Petitioner Versus Narinder Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate, for Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. Alok Singh, J. Landlady – revisionist has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the judgment dated 10.06.2006 C.R. No.2609 of 2008 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, as well as judgment/order dated 10.03.2008 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar, thereby dismissing the eviction petition filed by the landlady - revisionist. Landlady – revisionist has filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act on the ground that tenant is in arrears of rent from 01.08.1998 to 31.07.1999 at the rate of Rs.660/- per month amounting to Rs.7920, from 01.08.1999 to 31.07.2000 at the rate of Rs.690/-, amounting to Rs.8280/-from 01.08.2000 to 31.07.2001 at the rate of Rs.720/-, amounting to Rs.8640/-, from 1.8.2001 to 31.07.2002 at the rate of Rs.750/- amounting to Rs.9000/-, from 1.8.2002 to 31.7.2003 at the rate of Rs.780/- amounting to Rs.9360/-, and from 1.8.2003 to 31.07.2004 at the rate of Rs.810/- amounting to Rs.9720/- in all Rs.52,920/- and also failed to pay house tax at the rate of 15% per annum. According to the landlady, initially rate of rent was Rs.400/- per month, however, thereafter, a rent deed dated 01.08.1996 was executed between the parties and it was agreed that rent would be enhanced at the rate of Rs.600/- per month and thereafter, rent shall be enhanced by 5% every year. Tenant – respondent refuted the claim of the petitioner and on the first date of hearing deposited the entire arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.400/- per month. Tenant has denied that he ever agreed to pay enhanced rent. 2 C.R. No.2609 of 2008 Tenant has also denied any endorsement or any agreement to the effect that there would be increased of 5% after every year. Learned Rent Controller vide impugned judgment dated 10.06.2006 dismissed the eviction petition having observed that alleged rent deed dated 01.08.1996 could not be proved. Photocopy of the rent deed cannot be read in evidence. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment dated 10.06.2006, an appeal was preferred by the landlady which too was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide impugned judgment observing therein that any rent deed / lease deed for any term exceeding one year requires registration; since, alleged rent deed dated 01.08.1996 is not registered, hence, cannot be read in evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner – landlady vehemently argued that initially rent was agreed at the rate of Rs.400/- per month. However, another rent agreement was executed between the parties on 01.08.1996. According to the learned counsel for the landlady – petitioner, tenant- respondent has agreed enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month from 1.8.1996, with further stipulation that there would be an enhancement of the rent after every one year at the rate of 5%. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that initially photostat copy of rent deed dated 3 C.R. No.2609 of 2008 1.8.1996 was produced before the learned Rent Controller, however, during the appeal, an application was moved under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. seeking permission to place on record the rent deed dated 1.8.1996 which was wrongly dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that rent deed does not require any registration since initially it was for a period of one year with this stipulation if tenant continues to be a tenant after one year, he shall pay 5% enhance rent every year. Learned counsel for the respondent – tenant stated that the moment stipulation comes that there would be enhancement of the rent at the rate of 5% after every year, it would amount to lease beyond the period of one year which requires registration and in the absence of registration alleged rent deed cannot be read in evidence. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 reads as under:- “107. Leases how made – (1) A lease of immoveable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument. ……..” Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, reads as under:- “49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered – No document required by section 17 4 C.R. No.2609 of 2008 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) to be registered shall– (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or unless it has been registered: Provided that an unregistered document affecting immoveable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.” From the combined reading of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act ad Section 49 of the Registration Act, I have no doubt in my mind that any lease agreement which is for the period of more than one year requires registration and if such a lease deed is not registered, it cannot be read in evidence in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act. However, for collateral purpose only, such unregistered document can be looked into. According to the petitioner, a rent deed was executed between the parties on 01.08.1996 5 C.R. No.2609 of 2008 with the stipulation that tenant shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month and thereafter there shall be enhancement at the rate of 5% per month after expiry of one year. In the opinion of this Court, it amounts to lease for more than one year, which requires registration. Since alleged rent deed is not registered and highly disputed by the tenant – respondent, hence, both the Courts below committed no error of law by ignoring the alleged rent deed. In the opinion of this Court, petitioner – landlady could not prove that tenant – respondent has ever agreed for the enhancement of the rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month and thereafter 5% enhanced rent after expiry of every year. No interference is called for. Dismissed. September 7, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 6