An Unregistered Document Which Requires Registration U/S. 55 Of Maharashtra Rent Control Act Does Not Become An Invalid Document: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court reiterated that non registration of a document required to be registered under Section 55 of the Act attracts limited consequences provided under Sub Section 2 thereof apart from prosecution under Sub Section 3.
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court observed that a document which requires registration under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act) does not become an invalid document.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Writ Petition filed against the Order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner in a Revision Application.
A Single Bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar held, “… a document which requires registration under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Act does not become an invalid document. The presumption under clause (b) of explanation to Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act is applicable only when an Application for eviction is filed relating to the premises given on licence for residence.”
The Bench reiterated that non registration of a document required to be registered under Section 55 of the MRC Act attracts limited consequences provided under Sub Section 2 thereof apart from prosecution under Sub Section 3.
Advocate Alizain Patel appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Advocate Nilesh L. Makwana appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
By the impugned Order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, the Order passed by the Competent Authority, Rent Control Act Court, Konkan Division in an Eviction Application was set aside and the same was remanded back for trial and directing that the Order be passed after leading evidence by both the parties. The Competent Authority rejected the Application filed in Eviction Application seeking leave to defend filed by the Respondent and also Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of Eviction Application. Consequently, the Competent Authority passed the Eviction Order.
Points for Consideration
The following points arose for consideration before the Court –
• What is the scope of explanation 'b' to Section 24 read with Section 43(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999?
• Whether the Competent Authority while deciding the Application for leave to defend filed under Section 43(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 can decide the same dehors the rigours of explanation 'b' to Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999?
• Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case it is necessary to grant leave to defend under Section 43(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 to the Respondent?
Court’s Observations
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “… it is clear that as per the settled legal position, the intention of the legislature was to give finality to the existence of the facts occurring in the written Agreement of leave and licence. The legislature intended to shut out any other evidence which will detract from the conclusive evidence of that case. The object of expression “conclusive evidence of facts stated therein" is aimed to give finality to the establishment of the existence of the fact or facts stated in the Leave and Licence Agreement.”
The Court said that once it is provided by the legislature that an Agreement of Licence in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the facts, it prohibits any other evidence, which may affect the conclusiveness of the evidence.
“It is a settled legal position that when certain evidence is conclusive, it prohibits any other evidence to be led which may detract from the conclusiveness of that evidence. … An unregistered document which requires registration under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Act can be read in evidence provided the same is proved and the same is otherwise admissible in evidence. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 will not be applicable to such document which is required to be registered under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Act”, it further observed.
The Court enunciated that when an Application under Section 24 of the MRC Act is made, the said clause (b) will apply to such an Agreement and it will not be open for the licencee to lead any evidence contrary to the terms and conditions provided in the said Agreement.
“… it is clear that while considering leave Application in the proceeding filed by the licensor against the licencee as contemplated under Section 24, special rule of evidence as contemplated under explanation (b) to Sub Section 3 of Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act is required to be considered and will apply. The licensor can only raise the contentions, even for obtaining leave, which are permitted by said special rule of evidence i.e. explanation (b) to Sub Section 3 of Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act which provides that an Agreement of Licence in writing shall be conclusive evidence of the fact stated therein”, it also said.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner remanding back the Eviction Application to the Competent Authority for trial and directing that Order be passed after leading evidence by both the parties, consequently granting leave to defend is not proper and legal.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the impugned Order.
Cause Title- Ram Shankar Sinha v. Ritesh V. Patel & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:22102)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Alizain Patel
Respondents: Advocates Nilesh L. Makwana and Lajri H. Panchal.
