NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

CLINICAL COURSE – II (DPC) ASSIGNMENT 5

Submitted to –
Asst. Prof. Abhishek Negi

Submitted by –
NAME ROLL NO.

Anushka Singh 2022BALLB85

Mekhala Ranade 2022BALLB125

CIVIL REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC

IN THE MATTER OF:

Rajesh Kumar
S/o Mahendra Kumar
89, B- Kalawati Colony,
Sarafa, Jabalpur- 482001………………………………………………………… Petitioner

VERSUS

Ramesh Verma
S/o Kamlesh Verma
23, Bada Chowk,
Civil Lines, Jabalpur- 482030…………………………………………………… Respondent

REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

TO,
The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur,

The humble petition of the Petitioner above named,

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner, Rajesh Kumar, is the owner of a commercial premises located at Shop
No. 30, Sarafa, Jabalpur- 482001, which was rented out to the Respondent, Ramesh
Verma, under a tenancy agreement executed on 15.12.2024.

2
2. The Respondent defaulted in paying rent for a substantial period and also carried out
unauthorized constructions on the rented premises, violating the terms of the tenancy.
3. Due to persistent default and unauthorized alterations, the Petitioner filed an eviction suit
before the Hon’ble Civil Judge Junior Division, Jabalpur, seeking eviction of the
Respondent and recovery of rent arrears.
4. That the learned Civil Judge, Arnesh Kumar, vide order dated 01.01.2025, dismissed the
eviction suit on the sole ground that the tenancy agreement was unregistered, thereby
rendering it inadmissible in evidence.
5. Aggrieved by this decision, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Hon’ble District
Judge, Jabalpur. However, the appellate court upheld the decision of the trial court,
affirming that there was no error in the findings.
6. The Petitioner, being highly aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both courts, now
approaches this Hon’ble High Court under its revisional jurisdiction.

GROUNDS:

1.
2.
3. That the courts below have erred in interpreting the scope of Section 49 of the
Registration Act 19081. While an unregistered lease agreement cannot be used to establish
ownership, it is well established that it can be admitted for collateral purposes such as
proving the existence of the tenancy, rent amount, and the nature of possession1. This
principle has been upheld in Anthony v K.C. Ittoop & Sons2. Additionally, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in K.B. Saha and Sons v Development Consultant Ltd 3 that such
documents can be used to support claims related to possession and tenancy.
4. That the rejection of the eviction suit based solely on non-registration disregards the
settled legal position under the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023. Section 91 of the
Adhiniyam4 limits the admissibility of written documents but does not bar the use of an
unregistered agreement for collateral purposes. Furthermore, as per Section 92, oral
evidence can supplement the understanding of such documents. This means that
independent evidence, including rent receipts and witness testimony, should have been
considered, rather than relying exclusively on the absence of registration.
1
Registration Act 1908, s 49
2
Anthony v K.C. Ittoop & Sons [2000] 6 SCC 394
3
K.B. Saha and Sons v Development Consultant Ltd [2008] 8 SCC 564
4
Indian Evidence Act 1872, ss 91, 92.

3
5. That the Hon’ble Courts below have committed a material irregularity by failing to
recognize that the bar under the Transfer of Property Act 1882, regarding unregistered
lease deeds, applies only to leases exceeding one year. Since the lease agreement in
question was for a short duration, it did not necessarily require registration under Section
107 of the Transfer of Property Act 5. Courts in Delta International Ltd v Shyam Sundar
Ganeriwalla6 have held that short-term leases and tenancies at will do not require formal
registration to be enforceable in eviction proceedings6.
6. That the interpretation adopted by the lower courts is contrary to the equitable principles
of law. Courts have consistently held that procedural technicalities should not defeat
substantive rights. In Union of India v Ibrahim Uddin7, the Supreme Court reiterated that
procedural requirements must not be allowed to stand in the way of rendering justice in
cases where the substance of the matter is clear. Here, the Petitioner’s right to seek
eviction and recovery of rent has been obstructed solely due to a rigid and erroneous
interpretation of registration requirements.
7. That the findings of the lower courts have resulted in grave injustice by allowing the
Respondent to continue in unauthorized possession without paying rent. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ravi Prakash Goel v Chandra Prakash Goel8 has emphasized that legal
interpretations must not be used as a shield for unjust enrichment. The Respondent’s
continued possession despite defaulting on rent is an abuse of legal technicalities,
necessitating the intervention of this Hon’ble Court.
8. That judicial precedents clearly indicate that an unregistered lease agreement does not
strip the landlord of his rights to seek eviction under general tenancy laws. The Rent
Control Acts applicable in various states, including the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation
Control Act vide Section 129, provide relief mechanisms for landlords seeking eviction
based on non-payment of rent and unauthorized use of premises. The Hon’ble Courts
below have failed to appreciate these statutory protections available to the Petitioner.

PRAYER:

5
Transfer of Property Act 1882, s 107
6
Delta International Ltd v Shyam Sundar Ganeriwalla [1999] 4 SCC 545
7
Union of India v Ibrahim Uddin [2012] 8 SCC 148
8
Ravi Prakash Goel v Chandra Prakash Goel [2008] 11 SCC 232
9
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961, s 12

4
In view of the foregoing, the Petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to:

a. Set aside the impugned judgments dated 01.01.2025 passed by the Civil Judge Junior
Division, Jabalpur, and the District Judge, Jabalpur, in Suit No. 123/2025.
b. Allow the eviction suit filed by the Petitioner and grant the relief of eviction and recovery
of rent arrears as prayed in the original suit.
c. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL
EVER PRAY.

PLACE: Jabalpur
DATE: 10.03.2025

(Rajesh Kumar)
Petitioner
Through Counsel:
Thomas D’Souza
45, Vijay Nagar,
Jabalpur - 482019
+91 7676765656
(verification clause and sign of petitioner required)
(sign of advocate if required)

5
 Annexure A- True Copy of Order dated 01.01.2025 passed by the Civil Judge Junior
Division, Jabalpur.

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION, JABALPUR

Suit No.- 123/2025

Rajesh Kumar
S/o Mahendra Kumar
89, B- Kalawati Colony,
Sarafa, Jabalpur- 482001………………………………………………………… Petitioner

VERSUS

Ramesh Verma
S/o Kamlesh Verma
23, Bada Chowk,
Civil Lines, Jabalpur- 482030…………………………………………………… Respondent

ORDER
Date: 01.01.2025

1. This suit was filed by the Plaintiff seeking eviction of the Defendant from the
premises situated at Shop No. 30, Sarafa, Jabalpur- 482001, and for the recovery of
rent arrears. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant has defaulted in paying rent
for a substantial period and has also carried out unauthorized construction on the
rented premises.
2. The Defendant contested the suit, stating that he has been in continuous possession of
the premises and that the tenancy agreement presented by the Plaintiff is unregistered
and hence inadmissible as evidence.
3. After considering the pleadings, submissions of both parties, and the evidence on
record, it is found that the tenancy agreement relied upon by the Plaintiff is an
unregistered document. As per Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, an
unregistered lease agreement cannot be admitted as evidence to establish tenancy for a

6
 period exceeding one year. Therefore, the primary evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s
claims is inadmissible.
4. Furthermore, the Plaintiff failed to produce independent proof of rent payment or any
other legally admissible evidence to substantiate his claim. As a result, the suit cannot
be sustained.
5. In view of the above findings, the present suit stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open court on this 1st day of January, 2025.

Arnesh Kumar
Civil Judge Junior Division, Jabalpur