2012 (7) TMI 1144 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court modifies rent arrears order, dismisses eviction petition.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals regarding the arrears of rent, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the trial court and lower ... Admissibility of unregistered instrument in evidence - collateral-purpose exception to inadmissibility of unregistered document - second paragraph of Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act - party admission as evidentiary foundation - modification of decree for quantification of arrears - dismissal of petition as having become infructuousAdmissibility of unregistered instrument in evidence - collateral-purpose exception to inadmissibility of unregistered document - second paragraph of Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act - party admission as evidentiary foundation - modification of decree for quantification of arrears - Whether the decree for recovery of arrears of rent could be maintained notwithstanding that the rent deed (Exhibit-69) was unregistered, and whether the decree could be modified to quantify arrears. - HELD THAT: - The High Court set aside decrees solely because Exhibit-69 was an unregistered rent deed and, relying on Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons & Ors., held the document inadmissible. This Court held that while an unregistered instrument cannot support the main claim, the existence of a lease and rent relationship may be established by other unimpeached evidence under the second paragraph of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondent had admitted the annual rent (Rs.800/-) and its non-payment from October 1971; the trial and appellate Courts had found on evidence that the tenancy was with the plaintiffs and that rent was not paid. Those admissions and the factual findings were sufficient to uphold the claim for arrears even excluding Exhibit-69. The Court therefore restored the trial and lower appellate Courts' decrees, but modified them by quantifying the arrears for the period October 1971 to November 1980 as a consolidated sum, thereby avoiding remittal merely for computation. [Paras 5, 10, 12, 15, 16]The High Court's setting aside of the decrees was reversed; the decrees of the trial Court and lower appellate Court are restored and modified to quantify the rent arrears as directed.Dismissal of petition as having become infructuous - Whether SLP (C) No.23457/2011 seeking directions in the Rent Control proceedings should be entertained. - HELD THAT: - The Rent Control proceedings arising from the Civil Revision were remitted by the High Court and, after remittal, were concluded before the Rent Controller; an appeal from the Rent Controller's subsequent order was stated to be pending before the District Judge. Having allowed the civil appeals on the common question of rent arrears, and in view of the subsequent disposition of the Rent Control matter, the Court held that the Special Leave Petition concerning those Rent Control proceedings had become infructuous and did not merit further adjudication. [Paras 17, 18, 20]SLP (C) No.23457/2011 is dismissed as having become infructuous.Final Conclusion: Civil Appeals allowed; impugned High Court order in Second Appeal Nos.148-150/1992 set aside, trial and lower appellate decrees restored and modified to quantify rent arrears as directed. Special Leave Petition No.23457/2011 dismissed as having become infructuous. No orders as to costs. Issues Involved:1. Admissibility of unregistered rent deed for recovery of rent.2. Relationship of landlord and tenant.3. Calculation of arrears of rent.4. Eviction proceedings under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954.Summary:1. Admissibility of Unregistered Rent Deed for Recovery of Rent:The High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the lower courts on the ground that the rent deed marked as Exhibit-69, being unregistered, cannot be legally accepted in evidence for the purpose of recovery of rent. The High Court relied on the precedent set in Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons & Ors. [2000 (6) SCC 394]. The Supreme Court, however, noted that even if the rent deed was not registered, other uncontroverted evidence on record could support the appellants' claim for recovery of rent.2. Relationship of Landlord and Tenant:The Supreme Court emphasized that the relationship between the appellants and the respondent as landlord and tenant was not in dispute. The respondent admitted the tenancy and the rate of rent in his written statement. The Court held that such admissions are the best evidence and do not require further corroboration. The High Court failed to consider this vital aspect, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.3. Calculation of Arrears of Rent:The Supreme Court calculated the arrears of rent based on the respondent's admission of the annual rent of Rs. 800/-. The claim period was from October 1971 to November 1980, amounting to 9 years. The arrears were calculated as Rs. 2400/- for each of the three suits (RCS No.167/1974, RCS No.211/1977, and RCS No.240/1980), totaling Rs. 7200/-. The Court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court and the lower appellate court with this modification.4. Eviction Proceedings under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954:The respondent's eviction was sought on the grounds of willful default in rent payment and termination of tenancy. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction application ex parte due to the respondent's failure to file a written statement. The appellate court upheld this decision. However, the High Court remitted the matter back to the Rent Controller, directing the respondent to file a written statement and the appellant to comply with Section 15 (2)(i) of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Leases) Control Act, 1954. The Supreme Court noted that the Rent Controller had dismissed the application after remittal, and an appeal was pending before the District Judge. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition related to this issue as infructuous, directing the petitioners to pursue their remedies in the pending appeal.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals regarding the arrears of rent, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the trial court and lower appellate court's judgment with modifications. The Special Leave Petition concerning eviction proceedings was dismissed as infructuous. There were no orders as to costs.