TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an unregistered lease deed could be looked into for the collateral purpose of determining the nature and character of possession and the relationship of landlord and tenant, including support for an interim order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act; (ii) whether the eviction petitions were maintainable when instituted through the respondent's father and later ratified by a valid power of attorney; (iii) whether the defence was rightly struck out under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for non-compliance with the deposit order.
Issue (i): Whether an unregistered lease deed could be looked into for the collateral purpose of determining the nature and character of possession and the relationship of landlord and tenant, including support for an interim order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Analysis: An unregistered document, though inadmissible to prove the lease itself, may be relied upon for a collateral purpose. The relevant question was whether the document could be read to ascertain the character of possession and who was inducted as tenant. The document, together with the surrounding circumstances, supported the conclusion that the appellant was the tenant. The lease deed was therefore admissible for that limited purpose, and the interim order under Section 15(1) could not be faulted on the ground urged.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.
Issue (ii): Whether the eviction petitions were maintainable when instituted through the respondent's father and later ratified by a valid power of attorney.
Analysis: The father had executed the lease deeds on behalf of the respondent and had acted as her attorney in letting out the premises. A later power of attorney, duly authenticated, showed ratification of his acts in instituting the eviction proceedings. The objection that the foreign notarial authentication was ineffective was rejected. The judgment held that the Notaries Act did not bar recognition in India of notarial acts of foreign countries where reciprocity exists, and that the presumption attached to the notarial seal and authentication could be drawn. The initial defect, if any, in institution was cured by subsequent ratification.
Conclusion: The eviction petitions were held to have been validly instituted and the objection to maintainability failed.
Issue (iii): Whether the defence was rightly struck out under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for non-compliance with the deposit order.
Analysis: The appellant repeatedly failed to comply with the order directing deposit of arrears and current rent, despite opportunities and extensions. No sufficient cause was shown for the default. The conduct was treated as wilful and contumacious, and the discretionary power to excuse non-compliance was not available on the facts.
Conclusion: The order striking out the defence was upheld and the challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The eviction orders were sustained on all material grounds, and the appeals were dismissed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered lease deed may be used for the collateral purpose of determining the nature of possession, and a defect in institution caused by lack of authority can be cured by subsequent ratification through a valid power of attorney.
TaxTMI 
