Certified Copy Of Lease Rent Agreement Is Admissible Evidence In Small Causes Court: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a certified copy of a Lease Rent Agreement is admissible evidence in proceedings before the Small Causes Court as it is a 'public document' under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Justice Ashutosh Srivastava held that “certified copy of the Lease Agreement is a Public Document, as contemplated under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 and in terms of the 3rd Proviso to Section 65(e) or 65(f) the certified copy is admissible in evidence.”

Factual Background

Plaintiff/Respondent, M/s Rangoli Garments Pvt. Ltd., leased out the property in question to the Defendants/Revisionists under a Registered Lease Agreement dated 27.12.2018. Clause for yearly increase of rent was provided in the agreement. It was alleged in the plaint that the Defendants/Revisionists defaulted in various rent payments, and sometimes the cheques issued by them bounced on account of insufficient funds in the bank account.

According to Clause 20 of the lease agreement the tenancy would stand automatically terminated if the rent remained unpaid for more than two consecutive months. It was averred that though the Revisionist wrote to Respondent for credit note and waiver of rent for 3 months, Respondent rejected the request. Subsequently, notice terminating the Lease Agreement was issued to the Revisionist. Since the cheques given by Revisionist bounced, the Plaintiff/Respondent filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent and damages.

Defendants/Revisionists contested the maintainability of the suit and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stating that at least 6 months' notice ought to be given in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act considering that the plot in question was an industrial one. It was argued that the suit ought to be tried by Commercial Court since the dispute was commercial in nature.

Certified copy of the Registered Lease Agreement was filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent along with postal receipts, photocopies of the cheques and also the return memos showing insufficient funds in the Bank Account of the Defendants/Revisionists. However, the Defendants/Revisionists did not file any rebuttal evidence and only filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was rejected. The rejection of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application was challenged in Small Causes Court.

Since Defendants/Revisionists did not appear on the various dates and suit was fixed ex-parte for final arguments. There was no recall application filed against the ex-parte order. The suit was decreed in favour of Plaintiff, however, application for striking defense of the defendant was rejected.

Defendant/ Revisionist challenged the entire Suit decree including the order rejecting the application of Plaintiff regarding striking of defense on grounds that the decree was ex-parte without testing the issue of notice and veracity of evidence. It was argued that the original Lease Rent Agreement was never produced before the Small Causes Court and therefore, the suit could not be decreed against the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Per contra, counsel for respondent/plaintiff argued that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff was never controverted by the defendant/ revisionist in the proceedings before the Small Causes Court. It was further argued that certified copies of original Lease Rent Agreement was admissible evidence under Section 65(e) and (f) of the Evidence Act as it was a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.

It was further argued that the defendant/ revisionist had occupied the premises without payment of dues and even after the expiry of the lease period in terms of the agreement. It was argued that under such circumstances, even if the lease was ignored the notice of termination could be sent under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.

High Court Verdict

The Court relied on Rasik Lal Manikchand Dhariwal Vs. M.S.S. Food Products where the Supreme Court held that when evidence submitted by plaintiff remains unrebutted by the defendant despite being given several opportunities, and the Trial Court accepts such evidence and relies on the same for decreeing the suit, there is no illegality in the decree. It was further held that evidence tendered on affidavit (under oath) need not be reproved by the deponent.

Holding that certain secondary evidence is admissible under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, Justice Srivastava observed that

“Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 deals with documents, which are public documents. Sub Section (2) thereof makes public records kept (in any State) of private documents within the purview of "Public Document" under Section 74.”

The Court relied on Section 76 of the Evidence Act which provides that “certified copies of the public documents shall be given, on demand, by the Public Officer having the custody of the public document, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be and such certificate shall be stated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title such copies so certified shall be called certified copies in terms of Section 76.”

Reliance was also placed on Section 77 of the Evidence Act which provides production of certified copy of a public document as secondary evidence in proof of contents of its original and Section 79 which provides that any certified copy shall be deemed genuine if it is by law declared as admissible evidence. The Court held that certified copy of the Lease Rent Agreement was admissible as secondary evidence to prove its conditions and contents.

Further, the Court observed that the execution of a Lease Rent Agreement between the parties was never specifically denied by the Defendant/Revisionist, accordingly, there was deemed admission of the execution of agreement. It was noted that while not disputing the execution of agreement, the Defendant/Revisionist had not disclosed any other fact showing how they came into possession of the dispute property.

Since the landlord-tenant relationship was disputed between the parties, the Court held that notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy was a valid notice.

Case Title: M/S Kaizen India And 2 Others v. M/S Rangoli Garments Private Limited [S.C.C. REVISION No. - 157 of 2023]

Counsel for Revisionist: Manish Goyal,Sr. Advocate, Gaurav Tripathi

Counsel for Opposite Party: Nikhil Agrawal, Nipun Singh

Click Here To Read/Download Order