Balak Singh @ Soni Vs Jagmohan Singh — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Balak Singh @ Soni Vs Jagmohan Singh — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether there was evidence on record to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. +1 more

Court's answer

On the facts, relying upon rent deed Exhibit P1 for the collateral purpose of the factum of the petitioner's possession, coupled with his deposition as RW1 admitting occupation to run a tent house, and appreciating the depositions of the respondent-landlord as AW1 and Jagtar Singh AW2 (witness to the rent deed), it stood proved that the petitioner occupied the demised shop as a tenant under the respondent-landlord while running a tent house therein and was in arrears of rent.

Ratio / Principle

Any rent deed that necessitates registration under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 is inadmissible as evidence in terms of Section 49(c) of the same statute.

Key takeaways

Such an unregistered rent deed can nevertheless be considered and relied upon for collateral purposes.ratio¶10
The terms of a rent or lease deed do not constitute a collateral purpose; the nature and character of possession alone are to be regarded as collateral, provided they do not constitute the primary term of the lease or the main dispute for adjudication.ratio¶10
In an eviction petition involving an unregistered rent deed, the factum of possession over the subject property can merely be considered collateral.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision dismissed — eviction upheld (Harkesh Manuja J, oral, 07.08.2025). Held: a rent deed requiring registration under Section 17(1)(d), Registration Act 1908, is inadmissible as evidence under Section 49(c), yet may be relied upon for collateral purposes; the terms of a rent/lease deed are not a collateral purpose — only the nature and character of possession are, where not the primary term of the lease or the main dispute; in an eviction petition involving an unregistered rent deed the factum of possession is merely collateral, and absent a registered instrument the Court may determine the factum of tenancy, its nature and purpose from other evidence; a party's admissions in pleadings or oral depositions regarding nature of possession, rate of rent and arrears are the best evidence and need no corroboration. On the facts: unregistered rent deed Ex.P1 (19.05.2011) was used only for the collateral factum of possession; the tenant (RW1) admitted occupying the shop to run a tent house without explaining in what capacity and under whom; the landlord (AW1) and deed-witness Jagtar Singh (AW2) corroborated; ownership was not categorically disputed and was prima facie established by the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2002 (Ex.P2 & Ex.P3). Landlord-tenant relationship and arrears of rent stood proved; the Rent Authorities acted within jurisdiction under Section 13, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949; the revision petition was dismissed and pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

CR-7115-2018 (O&M) [1]

111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-7115-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.08.2025

Balak Singh @ Soni ...Petitioner

VERSUS

Jagmohan Singh …Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr.Himanshu Chhabra, Ad v ocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocat e & Mr. Amrainder Singh, Adv o cate for the respondent.

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present revisio n petition, prayer has been m a de for settin g aside the decisions dated 2 0 .02.2018 and 29.08.2018 pas s ed by the A uthorities below; whereby a n eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent/ landlord qua the demised shop stands allow e d. 2. Briefly stating, the respo n dent filed an ejectment peti t ion against p etitioner-tenant having invok e d Section 13 of the East Pu n jab Urban R e nt Restriction Act, 1949, for s h ort ‘the 1949 Act’, while clai m ing himself t o be the owner-landlord of demised shop located at S a lho Majra R o ad, Near Purani Tehsil, Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupna g ar, pleading therein that the petitioner w a s inducted as a tenant over the same on 19.05.2011 at the rate of Rs.1200 per month as rent with an

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.12 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-7115-2018 (O&M) [2]

agreed e nhancement of 15% per yea r . It was further pleaded that the petitione r - tenant had failed to pay th e arrears of rent from 01.08.2 0 12 to 31.0 5 .2013 @ Rs.1380/- per m onth and from 01.06.2013 to 31.05.2014 @ Rs.1587/- per month, besides dues towards rent @ Rs.1825 / - per month from 01.06.2014 t o 31.01.2015 and thus was li a ble to be evi c ted.

In response, the petitione r raised objection with respec t to the main t ainability of the eviction petiti o n while stating that there was no relations h ip of landlord and tenant b e tween the parties and thus, the learned Rent Controller was having no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction p etition.

Learned Rent Controller v ide decision dated 20.02.2 0 18 recorded that the respondent/ landlord was able to establish relation s hip of landlo r d and tenant with the petitioner and further it was also pro v ed that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and as such allowed the eviction p etition.

Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed first appeal, howe v er, the sam e also came to be dismiss e d vide order dated 29.08.2 0 18 passed b y the Appellate Authority at Rupnagar. Hence the pre s ent revision p etition.

The short point raised o n behalf of the petitioner is t hat there was no evidence on record to p rove the relationship of landlord and tena n t between the parties.

6.1. Impugning the aforementi o ned decisions, learned cou n sel for the p e titioner submits that no relia n ce could have been placed u p on

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.12 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-7115-2018 (O&M) [3]

by the C o urts below on the rent deed dated 19.05.2011 executed f o r a period o f two years as the same was a n unregistered document and as such wa s not to be relied upon so a s to establish the landlord-tenant relations h ip between the parties and t h erefore, the eviction petition f i led at the i n stance of the respondent w as liable to be dismissed; the learned R ent Authorities under the 1 9 49 Act having no jurisdictio n to adjudica t e upon the same. 7. On the other hand, lear n ed counsel for the respondent submits that even if the document Ex.P1 i.e. rent deed dated 19.05.2011 was an unregistered docu m ent, the same was rightly re l ied upon by the learned Appellate Auth o rity for collateral purposes. He further s u bmits that there was ample evidence available on recor d to establish the relationship between th e parties as that of landlord a nd tenant t h rough the depositions of la n dlord himself who appeared as AW1 an d the witness to the rent deed, namely, Jagtar Singh -AW2 a nd thus, the eviction petition was rightly allowed by the authorities below. 8. I have heard learned co u nsel for the parties and g o ne through t he paper-book. For the purp o se of dealing with the plea rai s ed on behalf of petitioner regarding admissibility of rent deed Ex.P1 a s a piece of evidence and also its relevan c e for collateral purposes, it m ay be nece s sary to examine Sections 17 & 49 of the Registration Act, 1 9 08 and the s ame are reproduced hereund e r:-

“ Section 17 . Documents of which registration is compulsory .

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.12 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-7115-2018 (O&M) [4]

(1) The following docu m ents shall be registered, if t h e property to which th e y relate is situate in a district in which, and if they ha v e been executed on or after t h e date on which, Ac t XVI of 1864, or the Indi a n Registration Act, 186 6 , or the Indian Registration A c t, 1871, or the Indian R egistration Act, 1877, or this A ct came or comes into f o rce, namely,

(a) instruments of gift of i m movable property;

(b) other non-testament a ry instruments which purport or operate to create, d e clare, assign, limit or extingui s h, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether ves t ed or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees a nd upwards, to or in immova b le property;

(c) non-testamentary ins t ruments which acknowledge t h e receipt or payment o f any consideration on account of the creation, declar a tion, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and

(d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;

(e) [non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any aw a rd when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, d e clare, assign, limit or extingui s h, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether ves t ed or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees a nd upwards, to or in immova b le property:]

Provided that the [Stat e Government] may, by or d er published in the [Of f icial Gazette], exempt from t h e operation of this sub- s ection any lease executed in a n y district, or part of a di s trict, the terms granted by whi c h

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.12 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-7115-2018 (O&M) [5]

do not exceed fiv e years and the annual re n ts reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees.

[(1-A) The documents co n taining contracts to transfer f or consideration, any im m ovable property for the purpo s e of section 53-A of th e Transfer of Property Act, 18 8 2, shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commence m ent of the Registration and Ot h er Related Laws (Ame n dment) Act, 2001, and if su c h documents are not registered on or after su c h commencement then, they shall have no effect for t h e purposes of the said s ection 53-A.] [Inserted by Act 4 8 of 2001, Section 3 (w.e.f. 24.9.2001).]

(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section ( 1) applies to

(i) any composition dee d ; or

(ii) any instrument rela ti ng to shares in a joint stock Company, notwithst a nding that the assets of su c h company consist in whole or in part of immova b le property; or

(iii) any debenture issue d by any such company and n ot creating, declaring, a s signing, limiting or extinguishi n g any right, title or inte r est, to or in immovable prope r ty except in so far as it entitles the holder to the secu ri ty afforded by a regi s tered instrument whereby t h e company has mort g aged, conveyed or otherwi s e transferred the whole or part of its immovable prope r ty or any interest there i n to trustees upon trust for t h e benefit of the holders of such debentures; or (iv) any endorsement up o n or transfer of any debent u re issued by any such c o mpany; or (v) [any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1-A)] not itself creating, declari n g, assigning, limiting o r extinguishing any right, title or interest of the valu e of one hundred rupees a n d

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.12 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-7115-2018 (O&M) [6]

upwards to or in i m movable property, but mer e ly creating a right to ob t ain another document which w ill, when executed, cr e ate, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such r i ght, title or interest; or

(vi) any decree or order of a Court [except a decree or order expressed to b e made on a compromise a n d comprising immovabl e property other than that whi c h is the subject-matter o f the suit or proceeding]; or (vii) any grant of i m movable property by t h e [Government] ; or

(viii) any instrument of par t ition made by a Revenue Offic e r; or

(ix) any order granting a loan or instrument of collate r al security granted un d er the Land Improvement A c t, 1871, or the Land Im p rovement Loans Act, 1883; or (x) any order granting a loan under the Agriculturi s ts Loans Act, 1884, o r instrument for securing t h e repayment of a loan m ade under that Act; or

[(x-a) any order made unde r the Charitable Endowments A c t, 1890, vesting any pro p erty in a Treasurer of Charita b le Endowments or dive s ting any such Treasurer of a n y property; or]

(xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledgi n g the payment of the w h ole or any part of the mortga g emoney, and any oth e r receipt for payment of mon e y due under a mortg a ge when the receipt does n ot purport to extinguish t he mortgage; or

(xii) any certificate of sal e granted to the purchaser of a n y property sold by pub l ic auction by a Civil or Reven u e Officer.

A document purportin g or operating to effect a contr a ct for the sale of immov a ble property shall not be deem e d to require or ever t o have required registration b y reason only of the fa c t that such document contain s a

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.12 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-7115-2018 (O&M) [7]

recital of the payment of any earnest money or of t h e whole or any part of t h e purchase money.] (3) Authorities to adopt a son, executed after the first d a y of January, 1872, an d not conferred by a will, shall al s o be registered.

Section 49 :- Effect of non-registration of documents

required to be registered. - No document required b y section 17 [or by a n y provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882),] to be register e d 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 conferring such power, unless it has been registered:

[Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable 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. ” (empha s is supplied)

Further, it would be essen t ial to take note of the exposi t ion of law o n the aforementioned issue b y the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following decisions:-

i) Satish Chand Makhan and ors. Vs. Goverdhan Das Byas and ors.; (1984) 1 SCC 369;

ii) Anthony Vs. K.C. Ittoop and sons and ors.; (2000) 6 SCC 394;

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.12 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-7115-2018 (O&M) [8]

iii) Charanjit Lal Mehra and ors. Vs. Kamal Saroj Mahajan (SMT.) and anr.; (2005) 11 SCC 279;

iv) K.B . Saha and sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Development Consultant Ltd.; (2 0 08) 8 SCC 564;

v) Ahmed Saheb (Dead) by LRs. And ors. Vs. Sayed Ismail with Shaikh Ahmed S/o S.K. Mehtab (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Mohd. Ismail S/o Syhed Sahib ; (2012) 8 SCC 516;

vi) Park Street Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dipak Kumar Singh and anr. ; (20 1 6) 9 SCC 268;

vii) Bevoke Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dipale Kumar Singh and anr. ;(2020) 11 SCC 782;

viii) Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Amit Chand Mitra; 2023 INSC 8 5 4.

Upon thorough examin a tion of the abovementio n ed decision s rendered by the Hon’ble A pex Court, it becomes evident that an y rent deed that necessita t es registration under Sec t ion 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act of 19 0 8 is inadmissible as evidenc e in terms of Section 49(c) of the same s tatute. However, the same c an be consi d ered and relied upon for collateral purposes.

Furthermore, the terms o f a rent or lease deed do not constitut e collateral purpose. The nat u re and character of possession are solely to be regarded as collater a l, provided that the same d o es not con s titute the primary term of th e lease or the main dispute for adjudica t ion by the Court.

In an eviction petition involving such unregistered rent deed, th e factum of possession over the subject property can me r ely be consi d ered collateral, however, w h erever the nature of posses s ion

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.12 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-7115-2018 (O&M) [9]

is the primary dispute, it must be pr o ven through other independent evidenc e . This implies that in the absence of a registered instrum e nt, the Cou r t is not precluded from deter m ining the factum of tenancy, its nature, a nd purpose based on other e vidence available in the rec o rd. Even th e admission made by a part y in such proceedings, eithe r in pleading s or oral depositions, regar d ing the nature of possession, rate of r e nt and arrears as the best evidence is not required to be corrobor a ted and should not be disre g arded. 11. Accordingly, after caref u lly examining the facts a nd circumst a nces of the present case, including the findings recorded by the auth o rities below based on the p ronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex C o urt on the aforementioned legal position, in the humble opinion o f this Court there is no nee d to interfere with the impug n ed decision s within its limited, revisional j urisdiction.

Relying upon the rent d eed, Exhibit P1, for collat e ral purpose s , regarding the factum of p o ssession of the petitioner over the demised shop, coupled with his deposition as RW1, where he admitted himself to be in occupation t hereof to run a tent house, a nd having appreciated the depositions m ade by the respondent-landl o rd himself a s AW1 and Jagtar Singh AW2, who happened to b e a witness t o the rent deed, Exhibit P1 it has been proved to the extent that the p etitioner was in occupation o f the demised shop as a tenant under th e respondent-landlord while r unning a tent house therein a nd was in a r rears of rent.

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.12 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-7115-2018 (O&M) [10]

Furthermore, particularl y when the petitioner-tenant having a d mitted of running a tent hou s e in the demised shop, faile d to provide a satisfactory explanation or e stablish to the minimum as t o in what ca p acity and under whom he was occupying the same, t he findings of fact recorded by the auth o rities below are deemed to be accurate and valid especially when t h e ownership of the respond e ntlandlord over the demised shop was n ot specifically and categoric a lly disputed and even otherwise, prim a facie established through the judgment and decree dated 16.08.20 0 2 (Ex.P2 & Ex.P3) on record. 13. In such circumstances, the Rent Authorities were well wi t hin their juri s diction to adjudicate upon t he eviction petition filed at the instance of respondent and rightly ord e red eviction of petitioner from the demised shop being in arrears of rent. Accordingly, the present revi s ion petition b eing devoid of merits is hereb y dismissed. 14. Pending misc. applicatio n (s), if any, shall also st a nd

disposed of.

07.08.2 0 25 ( HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE

Whether speaking/reason e d ? Yes/No Whether Reportable ? Yes/No

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.08.12 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document