Dismissed

Harish Chandra Singh v. Mohd. Tariq

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024/151/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a second appeal filed by a tenant seeking permanent injunction. The court found no error in the lower courts' dismissal of the suit for permanent injunction due to lack of a registered lease agreement and failure to prove rent payments under the Transfer of Property Act.

What the court decided

AI extract

Harish Chandra Singh Vs Mohd. Tariq — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53771

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 151 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Harish Chandra Singh Respondent :- Mohd. Tariq Counsel for Appellant :- Basant Lal Yadav,Dileep Kumar Yadav,Shivam Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had filed suit for permanent injunction and the same has been decided exparte without considering the evidence adduced by the appellant. Therefore the appellant had filed the first appeal which has also been dismissed exparte without considering the evidence. Hence the appellant is before this Court in this Second Appeal.

¶8

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶9

The suit for permanent injunction was filed alleging that the appellant and the respondent had entered into unregistered agreement on 01.02.2006 for letting out shop to the appellant by the respondent for indefinite period. In pursuance thereof, the appellant is in possession of the shop as tenant and he is paying the rent regularly. In the month of January 2016, when the appellant approached to the respondent for the receipts then he said that he is not having the receipts and he would give it in the next month. Thereafter he had not taken the rent from January 2016 to April 2016. Thereafter on 18.05.2016, the appellant had sent the rent through money order, the receipt of which was filed. The same was returned on 20.05.2016. The respondent had asked the appellant to vacate the shop on 15.05.2016. Therefore the appellant had filed suit for permanent injunction. The suit had proceeded exparte, in which the appellant himself appeared as P.W.1 and one Vijay Yadav appeared as P.W.2. The appellant had also filed certain documentary evidences, which includes photocopy of agreement, identity card, copy of the gas connection, bank pass book, rashan card, electricity bills etc.

¶10

The trial court, after considering the pleadings of the appellant and evidence adduced before it found that the appellant has filed the photocopy of unregistered agreement, whereas as per Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act

¶11

1882, the lease of immovable property for any term exceeding 1 year can be made only by a registered instrument but no registered agreement has been placed on record. Proviso to Section 107 provides that the State Government may from time to time by notification in the official gazette, direct that leases of immovable property other than leases from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent or any class of such leases may be made by unregistered instrument or by oral agreement without delivery of possession but no such notification has been placed on record. Even otherwise, the appellant may not be entitled for the benefit of this proviso because the alleged agreement was with delivery of possession. The trial court also found that the appellant has not placed on record any proof of payment of rent to the respondent. Without any pleadings a plea was also taken by the P.W.2 that no receipt was being given for the rent given by the respondent and he got the signatures of the appellant without any proof.

¶12

In view of above, it is apparent that considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the trial court dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the appellant has also been considered and decided considering the pleadings of the appellant and the evidence. The appellate court also found that the compliance of Section 30 of Small Causes Court has not been pleaded, therefore the contrary evidence adduced at the appellate stage cannot be considered.

¶13

This Court does not find any illegality or error in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court. The appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

¶14

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 Akanksha Sri.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harish Chandra Singh v. Mohd. Tariq

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Harish Chandra Singh v. Mohd. Tariq

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Alok Akhila Vs Suraj Lal Yadav

Smt.Kusuma Devi Vs Lakhan Lal

Bal Krishna Gupta and Others Vs Yaar Mohammad

Omveer Singh and another vs Sufiyan and others

Harish Chandra Singh vs Mohd. Tariq

Kruttika Agencies Private Limited, through Authorized Representative, Mr. Preyansh Vardhan Jain vs Kamla Nehru Institute of Technology, Sultanpur, through its Director