Civil Revision No.476 of 1997 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.476 of 1997 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.02.2009
Roop Singh .............. Petitioner
Vs.
Murti Sri Radha Krishan Ji ............Respondent
Present: Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate
for the respondent.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
-.-
K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL)
1. The landlord’s eviction petition was ordered by the Rent
Controller and confirmed in appeal. The ground of eviction was non-
payment of arrears of rent from 01.01.1980. The defence by the
tenant was that property itself had been purchased by him from the
original landlord-cum-owner, Sh. Sant Ram and there existed no form
of relationship as landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the
respondent.
2. The Courts below have considered the fact from the light of
evidence adduced on behalf of the landlord, which is said to be a
Mandir, that the property had been orally relinquished by Sant Ram in
its favour and that the property tax register also stands only in the
name of the Mandir. The documentary proof was sought to be
advanced to the effect that rents had been collected from several
Civil Revision No.476 of 1997 (O&M) -2-
tenants in respect of row of construction, which the Mandir owned
and in respect of the petition mentioned premise. AW-4, Des Raj had
given evidence that rent receipts had been issued by the cashier of the
Mandir to various tenants including the respondent. The counterfoils
which were filed and marked contained the handwriting of the cashier,
which was identified by the witness.
3. The contention of the respondent was that the property had
been purchased under a registered sale deed dated 09.06.1981 from
the original landlord-Sant Ram and that he was himself the owner of
premises. The Courts below found the property tax register
containing reference to the Mandir as the owner as a significant factor
to establish that the Mandir was the landlord. It also found from the
fact that in a row of buildings which the Mandir owned, all tenants
were paying the rents and recognized the Mandir as the landlord but
only the tenant was disputing its ownership. The Courts below
reasoned that in an action for eviction under the Rent Control Act, the
landlord was merely a person, who is entitled to receive rent and need
not be owner of the premises. While no exception could be taken to
the proposition stated as such, in a case where respondent pleads
ownership of the premises from a person who has admitted to the
landlord by both parties, then the consideration whether the jural
relationship existed between the petitioner and respondent cannot be
effectively made without reference to the defence by a tenant of
transfer of title in his own favour by the admitted landlord.
4. The Courts below was swayed by the fact that the original
owner -cum-landlord, Sant Ram had disclaimed any interest in the
Civil Revision No.476 of 1997 (O&M) -3-
property and had also given a letter in writing that he was gifting the
property to the Mandir. The issue, which the Courts below have
failed to see is that in relation to an immovable property of whose
value was more than Rs.100, no transfer of title is possible except
through a registered instrument. Section 17 (1) (a) of the Registration
Act refers to “instrument of gift of immovable property” as requiring
registration. Section 49 of the Registration Act states that no
document which is required to be registered under Section 17 of the
Act could be received as evidence to affect any immoveable property
or received as evidence to any transaction affecting such property
unless it has been registered. An oral release or a written letter of an
original owner acknowledging another person as the owner has no
value in the eye of law. A transfer of title to immovable property
could never be made by mere admission. The Supreme Court has also
in a decision in Ambika Prasad Thakur Vs. Ram Ekpal Rai AIR
1996 SC 605 held that an admission cannot create title in respect of
immovable property. Indeed, if title could be merely transferred by
admission, then there is no requirement of either the provisions of the
Stamp Act or even the Registration Act. There is no mode of transfer
possible other than how the law envisages that a transfer could be
effected.
5. Admittedly, no rent was paid from 01.01.1980. The sale
itself is made in favour of the tenant on 09.06.1986. Even the so-
called counterfoils do not contain the signature of the tenant. A self-
serving entry by a cashier on an assumption that the temple was the
landlord cannot invest such character in the landlord to merit an action
Civil Revision No.476 of 1997 (O&M) -4-
for eviction. The Courts below had committed an eggregeous error in
upholding the claim of the landlord and ordering eviction. The orders
of the Courts below are set aside and the civil revision petition is
allowed. But in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
February 18, 2009
Pankaj*