9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since deceased), now represented before us by her legal heirs being the two Respondents and an incorporated company, Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited. The latter is the Appellant in this proceeding. In this judgment, we shall refer to the landlady and her legal representatives as the Respondents interchangeably and the Appellant Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. shall be described as Defendant. The property in question comprises of approximately 16 cottahs (one cottah is equivalent to approximately 720 sq. ft.) of land situated at Radha Madhab Dutta Garden Lane, within the city of Kolkata. The tenure of the agreement, as stipulated therein was for a period of five years with provision for renewal for further five years. There is stipulation for further renewal for such period and on such terms and conditions as might have been agreed upon by the parties. This is contained in Clause 2 of the agreement. But no such renewal was effected. First five years of the tenancy stood completed on 31.10.2007, and a letter was sent by the landlady on 07.11.2007 seeking enhancement of rent. It does not appear that the Defendant had paid rent thereafter. It had, however, raised a plea that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the said agreement of 27.3.2003. In paragraphs 6,8 and 10 of the written statement, main defence of the Defendant was disclosed. Plea was also taken denying default and vesting of the property in the State under the thika tenancy law. Before us, arguments have been advanced mainly on legal position of the unregistered agreement and the consequences thereof. Rest of the written statement contained broad denial of the Plaintiff's claims. We quote below the said three paragraphs of the written statement: 6. As a matter of fact, the Plaintiff by representating herself to be the Owner/Landlady of the suit premises inducted the Defendant therein as a lessee as would be evident from the Agreement dated 27.3.2003. The Plaintiff has not sought any leave from this Learned Court to rely upon the said Agreement neither a copy of which has been filed. However this Defendant craves leave of this Ld. Court to rely upon the said Agreement at the time of hearing. The aforesaid Agreement on the face of it was an Agreement of Lease not registered under the statute and accordingly the suit is not maintainable. 8. It is denied that the tenancy if at all, expired on 31.01.2007 as the Defe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ials on record, I am of view that the suit premises was let out to the Defendant for other purposes other than agricultural or manufacturing purposes and such tenancy of the Defendant deemed to be a lease from month to month terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by 15 days notice and after expiry of the term of the lease i.e. on 31.10.07, a clear 15 days notice was served upon the Defendant requesting him to quit and vacate the suit premises and hand over the peaceful possession of the same to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff is entitled to get relief as prayed for. Hence, the above issues are also decided in favour of the Plaintiff. (quoted verbatim from the paper book) 6. The Trial Court found that the tenancy of the Defendant was month by month governed under the 1882 Act and after the expiry of the lease, the said tenancy was not renewed by the parties on mutual consent as per the terms and provisions of the agreement dated 27.03.2003. On the question of Thika tenancy, the Trial Court recorded that the Thika Controller had already held that the Plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises. 7. The appeal of the Defendant was examined by the Division Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under that Sub-section, where a suit or proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in that Sub-section. (4) Every notice Under Sub-section (1) must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property.] 107. Leases how made.-A lease of immoveable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument. [All other leases of immoveable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. [Where a lease of immoveable property is made by a registered instrument, such instrument or, where there are more instruments than one, each such instrument shall be executed by both the lessor and the lessee:] Provided that the State Government may from time to time, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tration and Other Related laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said Section 53A.] (2) Nothing in Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) applies to- (i) any composition deed; or (ii) any instrument relating to shares in a joint stock Company, notwithstanding that the assets of such Company consist in whole or in part of immovable property; or (iii) any debenture issued by any such Company and not creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest, to or in immovable property except in so far as it entitles the holder to the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the Company has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its immovable property or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or (iv) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any such Company; or (v) [any document other than the documents specified in Sub-section (1A)] not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.] 9. The aforesaid provisions were analysed by this Court in the case of Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons and Ors. [(2000) 6 SCC 394], and this authority was also cited before the High Court. This was a case in which the Respondent was inducted into possession of a premises under a lease deed for a period of five years, but the deed was not registered. It has been held in this judgment: 11. The resultant position is insurmountable that so far as the instrument of lease is concerned there is no scope for holding that the Appellant is a lessee by virtue of the said instrument. The Court is disabled from using the instrument as evidence and hence it goes out of consideration in this case, hook, line and sinker (vide Shantabai v. State of Bombay [AIR 1958 SC 532: 1959 SCR 265], Satish Chand Makhan v. Govardhan Das Byas [(19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me provides that a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from year- to-year terminable by six months' notice. In other cases, termination would require fifteen days' notice. The subject agreement had a duration of five years with a provision for renewal for a further period of five years. Hence under the first part of Section 107, for the said lease agreement to be admissible, registration of the same would have been necessary. The deeming provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 106 so far the same related to lease for agriculture or manufacturing purpose would not be applicable as the deed was not registered. The Appellant has argued that the Trial Court had admitted the lease agreement in evidence, and for determining the purpose of lease, we can examine the deed. But this argument is flawed. This provision contemplates lease for manufacturing purpose, in absence of contract or local law to the contrary, shall be deemed to be year to year lease. In that case, it would require six months' notice for termination. But here, the agreement itself provides a five year duration, and hence ex-facie becomes a docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... half of the Appellant, however, it was urged, referring to the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act that for establishing nature and purpose of possession, even an unregistered document could be looked into as that would come within the ambit of collateral purpose. On this point, judgment of this Court in the case of Sevoke Properties Ltd. v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Limited [(2020) 11 SCC 782] has been relied upon. In the case of Sevoke Properties (supra) a coordinate Bench opined that as the agreement for lease in that case was unregistered, contents of the instrument were inadmissible in evidence. There was admission in the written statement of Respondent in the case of Sevoke Properties (supra) by the Defendants that they were in occupation under the lease agreement (in controversy in that case) for a period of fifteen years with effect from 1981 and that period of lease had expired on 24.05.1996. The issue decided in that case was whether the lease stood determined by efflux of time and once it did, what would be the position of the lessee? The coordinate Bench found that the position of the lessee would be that of a tenant at sufferance. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use a document for the purpose of proving an important Clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose. 13. In the case of Rai Chand Jain v. Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla [(1991) 1 SCC 422], dispute arose as to whether certain premises were let out for residential purpose or as to whether there was an oral agreement of letting out the premises to the tenant, for running a press. It was in that perspective, it was held in the said case that a lease deed though unregistered, could be considered for collateral purposes to show the purpose for which the premises was leased out. Thus, the lease deed was referred to for the sole purpose to defeat the claim of subsistence of an oral agreement. The ratio of this authority has been considered in the case of K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited (supra) and we follow that ratio. In the case of Satish Chand Makhan (supra), another coordinate Bench of this Court declined to accept admissibility of an unregistered lease agreement for determining duration of the lease (9 years in that case) on the reasoning that terms of lease would not constitute collateral purpose. It was observed in this judgment that "nature and character of possession" could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
