A Certified Copy Of Registered Lease Agreement Is Admissible In Evidence For Proving Contents Of Original: Allahabad HC

The Court said that the certified copy issued under Section 57 of the Registration Act, 1887 is not only a copy of the original document but is also a copy of the registration entry which is itself a copy of the original and is a public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act.

The Court was hearing an SCC Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, filed by the tenants/defendants in the SCC Suit. This revision challenged the judgment by the District & Sessions Judge which rejected their applications and the order by the Additional District & Sessions Judge which decreed the suit. The Court ordered the defendants to vacate the premises and hand over possession to the plaintiff, along with arrears of rent and damages.

The bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed, “The certified copy issued under Section 57 of the Registration Act is not only a copy of the original document but is also a copy of the registration entry which is itself a copy of the original and is a pubic document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act and Sub Section 5 thereof makes it admissible in evidence for proving the contents of its original. The cumulative effect of above mentioned Sections of the Evidence Act and Section 57(5) of the Registration Act shall make the certified copy of the registered Lease Agreement dated 27.12.2018 admissible in evidence for the purposes of proving the contents of the original Lease Agreement.”

Advocate Anurag Vajpeyi appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Nikhil Agrawal appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The Plaintiff/Respondent M/s Rangoli Garments Pvt. Ltd. owns the industrial building in Noida which was leased to the Defendants/Revisionists under a Registered Lease Agreement which was for three years. The Defendants issued cheques for the rent, but they were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Despite requests for rent waiver for March and April 2020, the Plaintiff terminated the lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed a suit for eviction, rent recovery and damages. The Defendants contested the suit and also filed applications to reject the plaint. The Court ruled in favour of the Plaintiff, ordering eviction and payment of arrears and damages. The Defendants/Revisionists filed the present SCC Revision.

The Court observed, “…in ex-parte proceedings the Court is required to test the case of the plaintiff and not merely believe whatever has been stated in the plaint.”

The Court mentioned the Apex Court decision in Rasik Lal Manikchand Dhariwal v. M.S.S. Food Products, reported in 2012 (2) SCC 196 where according to the Court it was held, “where the plaintiff has tendered evidence by affidavit and the defendant did not cross examine him despite several opportunities given to him and the Trial Court accepted the plaintiff's evidence which remained unrebutted and unchallenged and also relied upon the documents produced by the plaintiff, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Trial Court in decreeing the plaintiff's Suit.”

The Court further observed in the above-mentioned judgment that, “where witness affidavit is tendered in evidence, the affidavit is already on oath/affirmation and is, therefore, not required to be reproved by the deponent.”

While noting that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for granting recovery of possession was valid the Court mentioned the decision of the Apex Court in Payal Vision Limited Vs. Radhika Chaudhary reported in 2012 (11) SCC 405 and quoted, “In a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, all that is required to be established by the plaintiff-landlord is the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of the tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice served by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. So long as these two aspects are not in dispute the Court can pass a decree in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.”

The Court found no merit in the SCC Revision and accordingly, dismissed it.

Cause Title: M/S Kaizen India v. M/S Rangoli Garments Private Limited (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:113092)

Appearance:

Appellant: Adv. Anurag Vajpeyi, Adv. Dinesh Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv. Gaurav Tripathi, Adv. Vishakha Pande

Respondent: Adv. Nikhil Agrawal and Adv. Nipun Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment