After considering the case, the court noted that the two agreements were notarised by the same notary, generated from the same e-stamp account minutes apart, and that Tyagi and Kumar had signed as witnesses on each other’s documents.
The Court held this pattern was consistent with a joint venture rather than a unilateral tenancy and that the non-disclosure of Tyagi’s own agreement amounted to a breach of the duty of candour expected of anticipatory bail applicants.
Further, the Court also relied on the statement of an injured resident, Nitish Chib, who said both accused collected rent, were informed of construction and iron-cutting work underway in the basement and ground floor and threatened residents with eviction when they objected.