TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Exhibit 50 - Held that:- The non-registration of document would not come in the way of the Court to hold that the relationship of "Landlord and Tenant" between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 in the present case has been established, coupled with the other evidence available on record. The substantial questions of law at Serial No.2 is answered accordingly. - Second Appeal No. 24 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 16-6-2016 - R. K. Deshpande, J. For the Appellant : V. V. Bhangde, Advocate For the Respondent : H.S. Chitaley, Advocate JUDGMENT 1. Regular Civil Suit No.63 of 1986 filed for eviction and possession of the suit property from the tenant on the basis of the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was dismissed by the Trial Court on 23-7-1993. The plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.172 of 1993, which has been allowed by the learned Joint District Judge, Amravati, on 7-11-2001 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and granting a decree for eviction and possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff along with the arrears of ₹ 810/- and ordering an enquiry under Order XX, R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30/- to be paid towards supply of electricity and water). The defendant No.2 came up with the stand in one place in his written statement that since last two years, he is paying the rent of ₹ 90/- per month, and in another place, that from the month of February 1986, he is compelled to pay the rent of ₹ 90/-, as the water and electricity supply to the premises was stopped. However, the money order sent came back to him. 6. The defendant No.1, who is the father of the defendant No.2, filed his written statement on 28-11-1986 denying the averments made in the plaint and also the tenancy, as was alleged by the plaintiff. It was the specific stand taken by the defendant No.1 in the written statement that it is the defendant No.2, who is the tenant in respect of the suit property and the defendant No.1 is not at all concerned with it. 7. The original plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and his daughter-in-law came on record and entered the witness-box to depose that the agreement dated 16-4-1984 was at Exhibit 50 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. The plaintiff proved the notice at Exhibit 47 and its acknowledgement by the defenda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Trial Court answered Issue No.(v) in the negative to the effect that the defendant No.2 has failed to prove that he has paid ₹ 1,000/- to the plaintiff as Pagdi (Advance). The Trial Court also recorded the finding in the affirmative on Issue No.(vi) holding that the defendant No.2 has proved that he paid the rent upto the month of February 1986. The defendant No.2 denied in his written statement the enhancement of rent from ₹ 60/- to ₹ 90/- per month, and the Trial Court recorded the finding that the rent was at the rate of ₹ 90/- per month. 9. On the substantial question of law at Serial No.1, though the Trial Court recorded the finding that the tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 with effect from 16-4-1984 has not been established, the lower Appellate Court reverses this finding and it is held that such a tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 has been established. The reliance is placed upon Exhibit 50, the agreement of lease. The plaintiff was not alive to lead evidence to prove the document at Exhibit 50. The daughter-in-law, who came on record, could not depose about the execution of this document. PW 2-Govindrao D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 16-4-1984, the defendant No.1 was considered as the tenant in respect of the suit property. This was introduced in view of the stand taken by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their separate written statement that it is the defendant No.2 who is the tenant and not the defendant No.1. In fact, the Trial Court deleted the issue as to whether the defendant No.2 proves that the defendant No.1 alone is the tenant of the suit property. Since the defendant No.2 has surrendered such an issue, the consequential amendment of pleadings by the plaintiff loses its significance. It was, therefore, not necessary for the lower Appellate Court to decide the question as to whether the surrender of tenancy was proved or not. The substantial questions of law at Serial Nos.1 and 3 are, therefore, answered accordingly. 12. So far as the substantial question of law at Serial No.2 regarding admissibility of document at Exhibit 50 in evidence is concerned, though such document is an unregistered document, it can be used for collateral purposes and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop Sons and others, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 394, throws light in para 16 thereof on such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V.V. Bhangde, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.2, submits that the office be given direction not to list the matters in which he is appearing for any of the parties before this Court. In other words, he submits that I should recuse from taking up the matters wherein Shri V.V. Bhangde is appearing for any of the parties. The submission shocks my conscience, particularly when it suddenly came from a regular practitioner from this Court, who was being looked at as an experienced and responsible officer of the Court. The entire arguments in this matter went on smoothly, patiently and with interest. After conclusion of the arguments, both the learned counsels were asked as to whether they intend to make any additional submissions, and thereafter the dictation commenced as per the usual practice. I need not delve upon any further and I refrain from making any comments against Shri V.V. Bhangde. However, the increasing trend need to be commented upon; so as to caution the lawyers and the litigants about the consequences of it, which can be avoided. 15. A lawyer has his own choice of appearing before the Court presided over by a particular Judge to conduct the matter. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in Civil Revision Application No.26 of 2016 on 6-6-2016 (Satish Mahadeorao Uke v. The Registrar, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, Nagpur), I have observed in para 25 thereof as under : 25. A Judge may recuse at his own choice from a case entrusted to him by the Chief Justice and it would be a matter of his own choosing. But recusal at the asking of the litigating party, unless justified, must never be acceded to. This is what the Apex Court has held recently in NJAC case instituted by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record - Association and another v. Union of India, reported in 2015 (11) SCALE 1. The question of recusal is normally decided by a Judge on the basis of his personal or private interest in the subject-matter of the litigation, his intimacy with the party/parties to a lis before him, his perception about conflict of interest in taking up the matter, and his own conscience. Such decision does not depend upon the dictates of lawyers or litigants. ... 18. Recusal to take the matters to be conducted by some lawyers, is a matter of Judge's own choosing and it cannot be at the dictates of the lawyers. What a Judge has to see is that he performs his duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
