Skip to content


Mohammed Ali Khan Vs. Hakim Khaja Shafi Hasan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. Nos. 116 of 1963 and 18 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1967AP185
ActsRegistration Act, 1908 - Sections 17(1); Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 107; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 10
AppellantMohammed Ali Khan
RespondentHakim Khaja Shafi Hasan
Advocates:V. Rama Seshamma, Adv.
Excerpt:
tenancy - admissibility in evidence - section 17(1) of registration act, 1908, section 107 of transfer of property act, 1882 and section 10 of code of civil procedure, 1908 - suit filed for recovery of arrears of rent - whether rent deed relied by landlord inadmissible in evidence for want of registration - lower court ordered rental deed being for lesser period than one year not compulsorily registrable - revision against order - terms of lease show lease on monthly basis - stipulation that if payment not made for continuous period of two months rent be recovered from personal property - difficult to hold lease was for more than one year as such compulsorily registrable - revision petition dismissed. - .....there will be no order as to costs as nobody appears for the respondent.c.r.p. 18 of 1965:(5) in a suit filed for recovery of rent on the basis of a rental agreement, it was needed by the defendant-tenant to the action that he had filed a regular suit in the city civil court being o.s. 149/64 for specific performance of the contract and therefore the small cause suit filed against him for the recovery of rent (sc 751/63) should be stayed under section 10 of the c.p.c. this was resisted by the other side. the learned chief judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the small cause suit was ripe for disposal and the question involved in both the suits was not one and the same. the revision is filed against this order.(6) the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

(1) The only question used in this revision is that the rented deed relied on by the landlord in inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.

(2) A suit was filed on the Small Cause side for recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 24/- per month for the period extending from 13th February 1961 to 12th October, 1961. The case of the respondent-landlord was that the rent for these months was recoverable from the petitioner his tenant at the rate of Rs. 24/- per month for the said period. The petitioner contended that he had received a sum of Rs. 1200/- from the respondent with interest at Rs. 2/- per cent per month and executed a sale deed as a collateral security for the said debt and also entered into an agreement of rent in lieu of interest. It was also pleaded that he had paid a sum of Rs. 1050/- in part payment of the amount advanced by the respondent and therefore he was not liable as claimed by the landlord. Further the argument was to the effect that the rental deed was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.

(3) The lower Court considering these objections came to the conclusion that I view of the rental agreement, there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and tha the need not go into the question of title of ownership of the suit house in view of the clear recitals in the rental deed. It was held that the rental deed being for lesser period than one year, was not compulsorily registrable, and in that view he decreed the suit with costs. The revision is directed against this order.

(4) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that as the lease was not for a specified period, it would be presumed to be for a period more than one year and as such required registration. On a perusal of the terms of the lease however it is apparent that the lease is on a monthly basis, the rent being payable at the end of each calendar month. Further there is a stipulation that if the payment is not made for a continuous period of two months, the plaintiff-respondent will be at liberty to recover rent from the personal property of the petitioner according to law, in the light of these conditions, it is difficult to hold that the lease was for a period of more than one year and as such was compulsorily registrable. The lower Court has also come to the same conclusion. I do not think the order of the lower Court calls for interference. This C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs as nobody appears for the respondent.

C.R.P. 18 of 1965:

(5) In a suit filed for recovery of rent on the basis of a rental agreement, it was needed by the defendant-tenant to the action that he had filed a regular suit in the City Civil Court being O.S. 149/64 for specific performance of the contract and therefore the small cause suit filed against him for the recovery of rent (SC 751/63) should be stayed under Section 10 of the C.P.C. This was resisted by the other side. The learned Chief Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the small cause suit was ripe for disposal and the question involved in both the suits was not one and the same. The revision is filed against this order.

(6) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if the petitioner succeeds in the lower Court there will be no question of payment of rent as claimed by the respondent in the small cause suit. The question before the small cause Court seems to be whether the petitioner herein is the tenant of the respondent and as such is liable to pay the amount by way of rent; whereas in the suit before the City Civil Court (O.S. 149/64) the question is whether the petitioner has paid Rs. 1050/- as claimed by him in part satisfaction of the amount received by him from the respondent. It is difficult to hold that the issues in the two suits are common, though it has been conceded that the decision in the suit will have some bearing on the suit in the Small Cause Court. This consideration alone is not sufficient to order the stay of the proceedings in the small cause suit which is said to be ripe for disposal. It is stated that the evidence of the parties has already been recorded and the case is at the stage of arguments. Whereas the other case is still in the initial stage. Therefore the order of the lower Court refusing to stay the proceedings before it on the small cause side seems to be in accordance with law. The C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs.

(7) Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //