Back
V.GOPALA GOWDA, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
PARK STREET PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
DIPAK KUMAR SINGH – Respondent
The legal document indicates that an unregistered agreement, such as a tenancy agreement, can be admitted in evidence to prove the fact of tenancy, but its terms cannot be used to derogate from the statutory provisions governing tenancy, specifically Section 106 of the applicable Act. Section 106 creates a fiction of tenancy in the absence of a registered instrument, meaning that even without a formal written or registered agreement, a tenancy can be deemed to exist based on conduct, possession, and other circumstances (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the document clarifies that in the absence of a valid, registered lease agreement, the law presumes a month-to-month tenancy, and the rent can be assessed or inferred from the conduct of the parties, such as payment of rent, possession, and other relevant circumstances (!) (!) .
Therefore, rent can indeed be assessed or determined even if there is no formal, registered rental agreement or document, provided that the parties' conduct and other evidence indicate the existence of a tenancy. The absence of a formal agreement does not preclude the assessment of rent; instead, the law allows for the inference of tenancy and rent based on conduct and circumstances.
JUDGMENT
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 15.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in F.A. No. 151 of 2012, whereby the High Court has set aside the order of the Trial Court and remanded the matter to it for reconsideration from the stage of examining the question of validity of the notice dated 30.10.2008.
3. The relevant facts of the case required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder:
One Karnani Properties Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 was the owner of the suit premises. It had let out the suit premises in favour of the appellant herein with the right to sublet the same or portions thereof. The appellant herein entered into an agreement dated 15.10.2004 with the respondents subletting the suit premises for the purpose of carrying out business from the ‘Blue Fox Restaurant’. Subsequently, the respondents requested the appellant to allow them to run franchise or business dealing with McDonald’s family restaurant from the suit premises. In pursuance of the same, the agreement dated 15.10.2004 was terminate
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
