Sangeet Lodha, J.@mdashThis writ petition is directed against order dated 24.7.15 of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Chittorgarh, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 22.12.12 of the Rent Tribunal, Chittorgarh directing the petitioners to hand over the vacant possession of a residential premises to the respondent, within a period of three months and to pay the arrear of rent and mesne profit, stands dismissed.
2. The relevant facts are that the respondent preferred a petition under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act") for recovery of possession of a residential premises invoking the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The respondent averred in the petition that premises in question was let out to the petitioners herein on 1.5.07 for monthly rent Rs. 3,000/-. The respondent claimed that the petitioners did not pay the rent for the period from 1.7.07 to 30.6.10 for 36 months quantified at Rs. 1,08,000/-. The respondent averred that despite notice being served upon petitioners by registered A/D terminating the tenancy, the possession of the premises has not been handed over.
3. The petition was contested by the petitioners denying that the disputed premises was let out by the respondents to the petitioners on 1.5.07 on monthly rent Rs. 3,000/-. According to the petitioners, the residential premises ad measuring 1071 sq. ft. consisting of two rooms, kitchen, latrine and bathroom was let out by the respondent to Bharat Singh, the petitioner No. 2 herein. It was averred that the remaining portion of the premises was handed over by Shri Sunil Nagauri to Smt. Laxmi Kanwar, the petitioner No. 1 herein, in lieu of Rs. 2,50,000/-. At the same time, the petitioners claimed that the respondent entered into an agreement to sell of the disputed premises with Smt. Laxmi Kanwar on 21.5.07 for consideration of Rs. 12,50,000/- and against the consideration agreed upon, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid in advance and thereafter, a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid by Smt. Laxmi Kanwar to the respondent by banker cheque on 31.12.07 and a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid to Mr. Sunil Nagori by Smt. Laxmi Kanwar, as aforesaid. Accordingly, it was averred that Shri Bharat Singh, the petitioner No. 2 herein, is occupying the premises as tenant whereas, Smt. Laxmi Kanwar is in possession thereof on the strength of agreement to sell.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed the issues and parties led their evidence. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal arrived at the finding that the petitioners were occupying the premises in question as tenant for monthly rent Rs. 3,000/-. The agreement to sell alleged to have been executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioners herein, was found inadmissible in evidence. The Rent Tribunal found that there is no evidence on record showing that the amount towards the sale consideration was paid by the petitioner No. 1 herein to the respondent by banker cheque. Accordingly, the Rent Tribunal found that the mandate of provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 stands complied with and thus, the respondent is entitled for vacant possession of the premises in question.
5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Tribunal as aforesaid, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that a portion of the suit premises was taken on rent by Bharat Singh, the petitioner No. 2 herein, from respondent''s father Shyam Sunder 17 years back for monthly rent Rs. 1500/- and thereafter, the Mahesh Kumar executed an agreement to sell in respect of the entire suit premises in favour of Smt. Laxmi Kanwar on 21.5.07 for consideration of Rs. 12,50,000/- and thus, there was no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. Learned counsel submitted that burden to prove issue No. 2 regarding the premises in question being let out by the respondent to the petitioners on 1.5.07 on monthly rent Rs. 3,000/- was upon the respondent, however, he miserably failed to prove the factum of letting out of the premises as aforesaid, by producing any evidence on record. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact the finding recorded by the Rent Tribunal affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal regarding the premises being let out by the respondent to the petitioners on monthly rent Rs. 3,000/- is based on assumption rather than, any cogent evidence on record. Learned counsel submitted that the agreement dated 21.5.07 was relevant for showing the nature and character of the petitioners'' possession over the disputed premises and thus, the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal have seriously erred in discarding said documentary evidence as inadmissible.
7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent-caveator submitted that the concurrent findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal remain findings of facts which cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submitted that the factum of agreement to sell was not proved by the petitioners by producing any evidence on record. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners claimed that the portion of the premises in question was let out by the respondent''s father 17 years back for monthly rent a sum of Rs. 1500/-, however, it was not disputed that later the possession of entire premises was handed over to the petitioners and therefore, taking into consideration, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and after due appreciation of evidence on record, the finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal that the rent of the premises was Rs. 3,000/- per month, cannot be faulted with.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. Indisputably, the tenancy between the parties was oral and no receipt was being given by the respondent to the petitioners against the payment of rent. The petitioners claimed that they were occupying part of the premises in question as tenant since year 1993 for monthly Rs. 1500/-. The petitioners claimed that the remaining portion of the premises was handed over to them by Mr. Sunil Nagauri to Smt. Laxmi Kanwar, the petitioner No. 1 herein on 1.12.07 on payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the consideration for sale agreed upon between the parties by way of agreement to sell dated 21.5.07. However, Bharat Singh (NAW1), the petitioner herein, in his cross examination, has deposed that the rent for the period 1.7.07 to 30.6.10 @ Rs. 3,000/- per month quantified at Rs. 1,08,000/- was not paid by him inasmuch as, nobody came to demand the rent in view of agreement to sell executed. Thus, taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal regarding the monthly rent of the premises being Rs. 3,000/- per month and the factum of non payment of arrears of rent, as claimed, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.
10. It is pertinent to note that the agreement to sell alleged to have been entered into between the parties, which according to the respondent is a forged document, was found not admissible in evidence on account of non registration and insufficiency of the stamp. It is to be noticed that Section 39 of the Act mandates that no instrument chargeable with a duty under the Act shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any persons having by law or consent of the parties authority to receive evidence shall be acted upon registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer unless such instrument is duly stamped. Thus, the agreement to sell sought to be tendered in evidence was not admissible in evidence even for co-lateral purposes. Thus, the finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal in this regard cannot be faulted with.
11. As noticed hereinabove, in the reply to the petition filed, the petitioners had taken the stand that a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid to Sunil Kumar by Smt. Laxmi Kanwar on 1.12.07, however, during the cross examination, a question was put on behalf of the petitioners to the witness Sunil Kumar (AW2) regarding payment of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 1.12.07, who has categorically denied having received the amount as suggested. The factum of payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- by Smt. Laxmi Kanwar to the respondent by the banker cheque has also not been proved by the petitioners by producing any cogent evidence on record. It is pertinent to note that as against the averments made in the petition regarding the payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- by banker cheque to the respondent, in the cross examination, Bharat Singh (NAW1) has admitted in unequivocal terms that Mahesh Kumar had never received Rs. 6,00,000/- through banker cheque from Smt. Laxmi Kanwar. In this view of the matter, in absence of any evidence on record, the finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal on issue No. 5 regarding the execution of alleged agreement to sell between the parties, affirmed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, after appreciation of the evidence in its entirety and objectivity, also cannot be said to be capricious or perverse.
12. For the aforementioned reasons, this court is firmly of the opinion that the order impugned passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, affirming the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, directing the petitioners to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question as also to pay the arrear of rent and mesne profit, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
13. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
