# Jaiveer Sharma Revisionist v. Saba Ara

- **Citation:** S.C.C. Revision No. 130 of 2019
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2017-02-27
- **Case number:** S.C.C. Revision No. 130 of 2019
- **Bench:** Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jaiveer-sharma-revisionist-v-saba-ara-46351
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Eviction of Tenant - Recovery
of arrears - Evidentiary value of agreement,
though
unregistered
and
inadmissible
in
evidence - Held, said agreement can still be
read for collateral purpose for providing the
nature and character of the possession of the
person occupying the premises thereunder - A
person, who holds over the premises in question
under an unregistered agreement and continues
in possession, has to pay monthly rent holding
over as a 'tenant' from month-to-month. (Para 8
and 9)
SCC Revision dismissed (E-1)

## Text

3-5 All. Jaiveer Sharma Vs. Saba Ara
1517
Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills
Division and Appeals, Assam. The High
Court will not review the discretion of the
Authority judicially exercised, but it may
interfere if the exercise of the discretion is
capricious or perverse or ultra vires. In
Sitaram
Ramcharan,
etc.
v.
M.N.
Nagarshana this Court held that a finding
of fact by the authority under the similarly
worded second proviso to Section 15(2) of
the Payment of Wages Act 1936 could not
be challenged in a petition under Article
227. The High Court may refuse to
interfere under Article 227 unless there is
grave
miscarriage
of
justice.
(emphasis supplied)

16. This Court is unable to find any
valid ground for interfering with the
discretion exercised by the lower Court in
condoning the delay in filing the appeal,
and this petition challenging the orders
dated 15.11.2016 passed in Misc. Case No.
61 of 2010 and order dated 27.02.2017
passed in RCA No. 18 of 2017 is
accordingly dismissed in limine. All other
questions
or
issues
on
merits
and
maintainability remain open to be raised in
the appeal.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1517
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

S.C.C. Revision No. 130 of 2019

Jaiveer Sharma ...Revisionist
Versus
Saba Ara ...Respondent

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Rahul Sahai
Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Sri Mohd. Arif

A. Civil Law-Eviction of Tenant - Recovery
of arrears - Evidentiary value of agreement,
though
unregistered
and
inadmissible
in
evidence - Held, said agreement can still be
read for collateral purpose for providing the
nature and character of the possession of the
person occupying the premises thereunder - A
person, who holds over the premises in question
under an unregistered agreement and continues
in possession, has to pay monthly rent holding
over as a 'tenant' from month-to-month. (Para 8
and 9)
SCC Revision dismissed (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rahul Sahai, learned
counsel for the revisionist - defendant and
Mohd. Arif, learned counsel for respondent
- plaintiff.

2. The present SCC revision is
directed against the judgement & order
dated 30.10.2019 passed by the Additional
District Judge, Court No. 13/SCC Judge,
Agra in SCC Case No. 01 of 2018;
whereby, the the SCC suit filed by the
respondent - plaintiff - landlord for
recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of
the petitioner - defendant - tenant from the
property in dispute has been allowed.

3. It has been averred that the the
respondent - plaintiff - landlord instituted
an SCC Suit for payment of arrears of rent,
ejectment and mesne profit. The respondent
- plaintiff was running a hotel in the name
of "Mumtaz Bila". On account of her going
to Kuwait, she let out the hotel in question
to
the
revisionists
-
defendant
on
01.03.2016 determining the rate of rent for
the first year at Rs. 5 lacs per annum;
whereafter, the same was to be paid at the
1518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rate of Rs. 50,000/- per month. It is further
averred that Rs. 1 lac was paid, in cash, for
the first year and remaining Rs. 4 lacs was
paid through two separate cheques, of
which the said cheques were bounced on
28.10.2016, which was declined to be
honoured by the revisionist - tenant.

4. Accordingly, a notice dated
15.11.2017 was sent by the respondent -
landlord terminating the tenancy of the
revisionist - defendant. In spite of the
service of notice, the revisionist - defendant
- tenant failed to file any written statement.
Accordingly, the matter was directed to be
proceeded ex parte against the revisionist -
defendant vide order dated 09.05.2018. The
ex parte order dated 09.05.2018, was
recalled on 02.04.2019. Vide order dated
21.05.2019, the revisionist - defendant was
non-suited under Order VIII, Rule 10 CPC,
as he failed to submit the written statement.
After perusal of the records, the learned
Additional District Judge, vide judgement
& decree dated 30.10.2019, directed
ejectement of the revisionist - defendant
from the property in dispute, against which,
the present revision has been filed by the
defendant - revisionist.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist -
defendant submits that since the agreement, on
the strength of which the tenancy is claimed by
the respondent - plaintiff - landlord, is for a
period of 10 years, but the same is an
unregistered agreement under the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 and hence, the same cannot be read
in evidence. It is further submitted that as per
section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, the
agreement in question is not admissible in
evidence. He further submitted that there was
no occasion for the court below to non-suit the
revisionist - defendant by adopting a procedure
under Order VIII, Rule 10 of CPC against the
revisionist - defendant.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent -
plaintiff - landlord has defended the impugned
order by contending that the order impugned
has been passed in accordance with law and
after following due process of law. He further
submits that the revisionist - defendant has not
denied, anywhere, that he has not taken the
property in question to use the same as tenant
on the basis of monthly rent to be paid by him,
but in spite of the said fact, no payment of rent
has been paid by the revisionist - defendant.
Even the cheques, which were being given to
the respondent, were bounced. Therefore, the
revisionist - defendant was in default in making
payment of rent of the property in dispute. It is
further submitted that in spite of the notice
having been served upon the revisionist -
defendant, no payment of outstanding rent has
been made and the revisionist has failed to
brought on record any material to show that he
had paid the rent from 01.03.2016.

7. The Court has perused the record.

8. It is admitted to the parties that the
property in dispute was being used by the
revisionist - defendant. Learned counsel for
the revisionist has tried to bring to the
notice of this Court that the agreement was
for a period of 10 years, but the same was
unregistered
agreement,
which
is
inadmissible
in
evidence
under
the
provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. But the
said agreement can still be read for
colateral purpose for providing the nature
and character of the possession of the
person occupying the premises thereunder.
The person, who holds over the premises in
question under the unregistered agreement,
has to pay monthly rent holding over as a
tenant from month-to-month.

9. In the instant case, the agreement
was for a period exceeding one year and
therefore,
the
agreement,
being
3-5 All. Virendra Goel Vs. Union of India
1519
unregistered, is inadmissible in evidence,
but the revisionist - defendant - tenant has
not disputed that he is occupying the
premises in question. A person, who holds
over under an unregistered agreement and
continues in possession, has to pay monthly
rent holding over as a "tenant" from monthto-month.

10. The revisionist - defendant has
utterly failed to bring on record the
documents showing the payment of monthto-month rent of the premises in question.
Only a bald averment has been made with
regard to payment of rent in cash. It has
come on record that the revisionist -
defendant is in occupation of the premises
in question without paying rent and the
same is still outstanding.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, the impugned
judgement & decree does not suffer from
any illegality and hence, no interference is
called for by this Court.

12. The SCC revision is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1519
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482/378/407 Cr.P.C. No. 61 of
2020

Virendra Goel ...Applicant
Versus
Union of India ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Anuuj Taandon, Purnendu Chakravarty
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.S.G., Shiv P. Shukla

(A) Criminal Law- Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - Section
3/4 - Section 19 -Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Sections 482 -
Inherent jurisdiction - the - power to
arrest - Section 44(1)(C) - offence triable
by Special courts - Section 45 - Offence
be cognizable and non - bailable - Section
88 Cr.P.C. - power to take bond for
appearance - does not confer any right
on the accused to enforce for accepting
the bond - confer a discretion on the
Court concerned whether to accept bond
from the accused or from a person
appearing
in
the
Court
or
not
-
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC) -
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B and 409 IPC - application of an accused
in the case relating to PML Act - in
respect of granting bail or furnishing
bond
-
has
to
be
considered
in
accordance with the provisions contained
in the CrPC - applications of the
petitioner and other co-accused for
releasing them on furnishing bonds -
rejected - no error in the impugned order.
(Para-27,31,33)

The petitioner and other co-accused moved an
application before Sessions Judge/Special Judge,
PMLA for allowing them to furnish bonds to the
satisfaction of the PMLA Court in Complaint Case
instead of taking them in custody and dealing with
their bail applications etc. - learned Special Judge
rejected the applications of the petitioner and other
co-accused for releasing them on furnishing bonds -
accused were issued summon for appearance under
Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 - they did not appear - issued non-bailable
warrants . (Para-1,2)

HELD:- A person accused of the offences
under Section 3/4 PML Act, has been issued
summon or warrant to appear before the Court,
is not a ''free agent', and mere fact that he has