AIR 2009 (NOC) 2374 (KAR.) ::2009 (4) AIR Kant HCR 201 ::2009 A I H C 2419 ::(2009) 4 KCCR 2922

Karnataka High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Manjula Chellur, K. N. Keshavanarayana , JJ

(A) Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) O. 41, R. 27— Karnataka Stamp Act (34 of 1957), S 34 — Registration Act (16 of 1908), S 17 — Production of additional evidence — Appellate stage — Eviction suit — Appellants-tenants sought to produce original agreement of lease deed which according to them contains an endorsement regarding receipt of Rs 8 lakhs by lessors/plaintiffs — As per terms of this document, period of lease is 10 years — It is a compulsorily registerable document — However, this document is not registered — Cannot be received in evidence for any purpose in view of S 34 of Karnataka Stamp Act — Fact that it can be received in evidence for collateral purpose in view of S 17 of Registration Act, irrespective (Para 21,22,23)

(B) Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) O. 41, R. 27— Production of additional evidence — Appellate stage — Eviction suit — Tenants sought to produce agreement of lease in appeal on grounds that, document could not be produced earlier as it was lost and in spite of their best efforts he could not trace same earlier — However, clear from evidence of tenant that they had submitted said document for securing loan from Bank to show that they are tenants of suit premises and for decoration of their hotel for business purpose — Clear that original lease deed which is now sought to be produced was very much with tenants and for reasons best known to them said document was not produced in the Court below — Tenant cannot be allowed to produce additional documents (Para 24)

(C) Karnataka Rent Control Act (22 of1961) S. 21 — Contract Act (9 of 1872), Ss 186, 188 — Suit for ejectment — Maintainable at instance of one of co-owners — Consent of other co-owner is not necessarily required to be in writing, this consent may be implied — After third co-owner is impleaded as a party to suit, he did not file any written statement nor examined himself before Court to assert that he has not given consent to plaintiffs to file suit — Is sufficient circumstance to indicate that he has impliedly consented for plaintiffs to file suit (Para 29)