JUDGMENT
C.M. Nayar, J.
(1) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 24, 1977 of Additional District Judge, Delhi.
(2) The respondent Tek Ram and others filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant from the site shown red in the plan attached to the plaint and for recovery of Rs. 18.00 on account of rent from July 1,1963 to March 31, 1964 and damages from April 1,1964 to June 30,1966 amounting to Rs. 54.00 . The said suit was filed in the year 1966 in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi. The respondents/plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of the site in dispute; that the appellant was in possession of the same since 1949 under an oral agreement of tenancy at the rate of Rs. 2.00 per month; that on July 5,1960 a Panchayat was held at village Chandrawal and the appellant became the tenant of the land in dispute at the rate of Rs. 2.00 per month; that neither possession had been delivered nor the arrears of rent for use and occupation had been paid despite notice of termination of tenancy having been served on the appellant on February 10, 1964.
(3) The appellant contested the suit and denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and asserted that the suit was not maintainable for want of permission under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. He also alleged that the respondents were not the owners of the suit premises and he was in possession as owner.
(4) The following issues were framed on pleadings of the parties.: 1. Whether there is a relation of landlord and tenant between the parties? 2. Whether the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 are applicable to the property in question, if so, has the Court jurisdiction to try the claim for ejectment? 3. To what amount on account of arrears of rent is the plaintiff entitled? 4. Whether claim for ejectment is effected under Section 19 of the Slum Areas Act of 1956? 5. Whether Panchayatnama dated 7.5.60 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation as alleged in the written statement, if so, to what effect? 6. Whether plaintiff has served a valid notice of termination of tenancy, if not, to what effect? 7. Relief. The learned trial Judge vide judgment dated January 24, 1968, held that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not proved; that the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act were not attracted; that the respondents were not entitled to claim any arrears of rent; the premises being in slum areas, prayer for ejectment was barred for want of permission under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, that the Panchayatnama dated May 7, 1960 had not been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation and that the plaintiffs had served a valid notice of termination of tenancy. However, in view of the findings on issues Nos. 1,3 and 4, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. The Appellate Court framed two additional issues and called for the report of the learned Subordinate Judge on the said issues. These were as follows : 1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the disputed plot? 2. To what amount of damages for use and occupation of the suit plot, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to recover from the defendant for the period in question? The learned Subordinate Judge held that the respondents/plaintiffs were not proved to be the owners of the disputed plot. On issue No. 2 it was held that as the respondents were not proved to be the owners, they were not entitled to recover damages for use and occupation. The respondents/plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi. It was not disputed before that Court that the parties had executed a Panchayatnama and even otherwise, the trial Judge had come to the conclusion that Panchayatnama had been executed by the appellants and the execution was not because of any fraud or misrepresentation. Therefore, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant appearing before the Additional District Judge that he was not relying upon the evidence with respect to ownership excepting the Panchayatnama in question. The learned Appellate Judge referred to the contentions of the parties, particularly that the Panchayatnama could not be looked into for purposes of determining the point of ownership and the nature of possession of the appellant. The Panachayatnama was not a registered document and it was next contended by the Counsel for the respondents that non-registration of the same was of no consequence because it could be looked into for collateral purpose and the questions, as to whether the respondents were owners and whether the possession of the appellant was permissive were questions which could be determined by looking into the Panchayatnama as both the questions were covered by the expression “collateral purpose”. The Court was referred to the judgment as reported in Mangal Singh v. Tek Ram & Others, ,which dealt with the same Panchayatnama which arose for consideration in the present case. Paragraphs 24 and 25 deal with the question of admissibility of Panchayatnama for collateral purpose. The same may be reproduced as follows : “24. The Panchayatnama in the present case, therefore, is not admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the permanent lease which it seeks to create. That is an interest in immovable property. The document being unregistered is inadmissible. But for the nature of possession reference can certainly be made to the document. It can be read in evidence. A reading of the document shows that the defendant’s possession is permissive. They admitted that the land on which they had built the mud huts belongs to the plaintiffs. They agreed to become tenants under the plaintiffs. Therefore, in order to explain the present possession of the defendants and its nature and character the document can be admitted in evidence. This will be a collateral purpose. I think the Courts below were right in admitting the document to prove the nature of possession of the defendants. 25. In Kidar Nath v. Dungar Mal and Sons Air 1931 Lahore 501 and Jawahri Mat v. Jagan Nath, Air 1930 Lahore 915, unregistered document of lease was read in evidence in order to establish what damages the landlord suing for arrears of rent was entitled to by way of rent. Rent of Rs. 19.00 per year is mentioned in the Panchayatnama. The Panchayatnama is inadmissible in evidence on account of its not being registered. Although the document as to the rent mentioned in the lease cannot be looked at in order to establish the rent fixed but the Courts can look at it to determine what damages ought to be awarded against the defendants for use and occupation of the land. It was on this view that the First Appellate Court proceeded. It held that a decree for rent could not be passed in favor of the plaintiffs. It converted that decree into a decree for damages for use and occupation. On the view taken in the Lahore decisions the First Appellate Court appears to me to be quite right.”
(5) The appellate Judge, accordingly, on the basis of the law as stated above, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit with regard to recovery of Rs. 54.00 as damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 2.00 per month from April 1,1964 to June 30, 1966. The decree for possession was not passed as the possession was not claimed of the said premises.
(6) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant to impugn the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. The photostat copy of the Panchayatnama is filed and is marked ‘A’, which forms part of the record of the case. The learned Judge referred to the interpretation put by the High Court on the document, as has been referred to in the above said paragraphs and accepted such interpretation. The learned Counsel has not placed any cogent material before me in the present second appeal to take a contrary view. The said Panchayatnama was admittedly signed by the appellant wherein he accepted that he had built the hut in question , the land belonging to the respondents. The possession of the appellant, accordingly, was correctly held to be permissive and the respondents were held to be owners of the land and the claim of damages was rightly upheld in view of the Panchayatnama. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not denied the existence of this document. However, it is contended that the same is not proved in accordance with law and the appellant may have just signed the same as a witness. This contention is misconceived as the facts in the case of Mangal Singh v. Tek Ram and Others, (supra) clearly indicate that the other signatories to the document, who had signed the same, had to face similar consequences and the present appellant could not escape from the same conclusion. The document also was held not to be executed because of any fraud or misrepresentation.
(7) In view of the above, there is no force in this appeal. The same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.