Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court When there is no period agreed upon between the parties, duration has to be determined by referring to the object with which the tenancy is created MANU/SC/0484/2020 - (17 Jun 2020) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Siri Chand (Deceased) thr. L.Rs. Vs. Surinder Singh</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">In present case, an application under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was filed by the Appellant-landlord praying for eviction of the tenant along with arrears of rent and house tax and interest on the arrears of rent. The Appellant's case was that rent and house tax was not paid. The Rent Controller held that, there exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Controller allowed the application of the Appellant and directed eviction of the Respondent from the premises in question. 
An appeal was filed by the tenant against the order of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Court did not agree with the findings of the Rent Controller that document was not compulsorily registrable. Appellate Court observed that perusal of the document reveals that there would be increase in the rent to the tune of 10% every year, hence the document was not executed for a period of less than a year rather the intention of the parties is clear that it was executed for more than one year, hence the document was required to be registered under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 (Act). However, the Appellate Court rejected the claim of the tenant that rate of rent was Rs. 1,000 only. The Appellate Court after holding that document was compulsorily registrable took the view that the Clause regarding 10% yearly increase cannot be relied and judgment of Rent Controller was accordingly set aside and the appeal was allowed. 
The Appellant aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Court filed a revision before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision referring to the finding of the Appellate Court that rent note- was compulsorily registrable. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal has been filed. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of the appeal contends that rent note dated 27th July, 1993, which was signed by the tenant was valid Rent note and was covered within the definition of lease as given in the Registration Act, 1908. The document was not registrable under Section 17(1)(d) of Act. 
First issue, which has arisen for consideration in present appeal is as to whether the rent note dated 27th July, 1993, was a document, which required compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(d) of Act. The second issue to be considered is as to whether the Appellate Court could have set aside the decree of eviction without recording finding that there was no default on the part of the tenant in payment of rent and house tax etc. and the amount deposited by the tenant was sufficient to save him from eviction. 
The present is a case where rent deed does not prescribe any period for which it is executed. When the lease deed does not mention the period of tenancy, other conditions of the lease/rent deed and intention of the parties has to be gathered to find out the true nature of the lease deed/rent deed. The two conditions written in the rent note are also relevant to notice. First, if payment of rent in any month is not made up to 5th of month, owner shall have right to get the shop evicted and second if the owner is in need of shop, he by serving notice of one month can get the shop vacated. This Court had occasion to consider the provision of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and noted the Rule of construction, which is to be applied when there is no period agreed upon between the parties in a lease deed. In Ram Kumar Das v. Jagdish Chandra Deo, Dhabal Deb and Another, this Court held that when there is no period agreed upon between the parties, duration has to be determined by referring to the purpose and object with which the tenancy is created. 
As per law laid down by this Court in Ram Kumar Das v. Jagdish Chandra Deo, Dhabal Deb and Another, there shall be a presumption that the tenancy in the present case is monthly tenancy. When the clauses of rent note are cumulatively read, the intention of the tenant is more than clear that, tenancy was only monthly tenancy, which could have been terminated on default of payment of rent by 5th day of any month or by notice of one month. The rent deed did not confer any right to tenant to continue in the tenancy for a period of more than one year nor it can be said that tenancy was created for a period of more than one year. Present was a case of tenancy for which no period was specified and looking to all the clauses cumulatively, present Court finds that, the rent note was not such kind of rent note, which requires compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(d) of Act. 
The Rent Controller had returned a finding regarding rate of rent @ Rs. 2,000 per month and further the tenant was liable to pay the house tax, which was not paid from 1999 to 2005 and the decree of eviction was passed accordingly. The Appellate Court although accepted the finding of the Rent Controller that rate of rent was @ Rs. 2,000 and not Rs. 1,000 but merely on the finding that landlord cannot claim 10% increase of rent every year since the document was not registered had allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment. There is no specific finding by the Appellate Court regarding the liability of the tenant to pay the house tax. The Appellate Court after holding that document-rent deed was compulsorily registrable and having not registered allowed the appeal. No finding was returned by the Appellate Court that tenant was not in default and tenant has deposited the necessary amount to save himself from eviction. The judgment of the Appellate Court is unsustainable. The judgment and decree of the Rent Controller directing eviction ought not to have been interfered by the Appellate Court. The judgment and decree of the Rent Controller directing eviction of the tenant is restored. Appeal allowed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Relevant : Ram Kumar Das v. Jagadish Chandra Deb Dhabal Deb and Ors. <manuid>MANU/SC/0056/1951</manuid></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Eviction, Rent deed, Registration</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>