Back
2023 Supreme(AP) 1419
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K.Manmadha Rao, J.
Nalla Lakshmi Kantha Rao - Appellant
Versus
Nagubandi Markandeswara Rao - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 6578 of 2017
Decided On : 31-10-2023
IMPORTANT POINT
Interpretation of lease agreements and the requirement of registration under the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act.
Headnote:
LEASE - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sec. 105, Sec. 107; Registration Act, 1908, Sec. 17(1)(d) - The court discussed the interpretation of the lease agreement and the requirement of registration under the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act. The court relied on previous decisions to determine that a lease for a term not exceeding one year accompanied by delivery of possession and the terms agreed between the parties reduced into writing subsequently does not require compulsory registration.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit to vacant the property and filed an application to direct the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent. The court below refused to mark the unregistered lease agreement as an exhibit, leading to the filing of the revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lease agreement did not require compulsory registration as it was for a term not exceeding one year and was accompanied by delivery of possession. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the court below to proceed with the trial and dispose of the suit within six months.
Issues: Interpretation of the lease agreement, requirement of registration under the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act, validity of the unregistered lease document.
Ratio Decidendi: A lease for a term not exceeding one year accompanied by delivery of possession and the terms agreed between the parties reduced into writing subsequently does not require compulsory registration.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the C.R.P, set aside the impugned order, and directed the court below to proceed with the trial and dispose of the suit within six months.
JUDGMENT
1. Aggrieved by the orders dtd. 6/2/2017 passed in I.A.No.497 of 2016 in O.S.No. 151 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru, (in short 'the court below') the present revision is filed.
2. The petitioner herein is the defendant; respondent herein is the plaintiff before the court below.
3. The respondent/ plaintiff has been filed a suit in O.S.No. 151 of 2014 against petitioner/ respondent to vacant the plaint schedule property. In the said suit the impugned application has been filed under order XV-A, rule (i), (ii) of CPC, to direct the petitioner/ defendant to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs.2, 16, 000.00 till the month of May-2016 and in his default in doing so prayed to the court to strike of defence of petitioner/ defendant in the suit. The court below holding that the unregistered lease document/ lease agreement dtd. 1/9/2008 is not liable to be marked as an Exhibit on behalf of the respondent/ defendant and returned to the party on proper identification. Assailing the same the present revision came to be filed.
4. Heard Mr. S. Ramachandra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Venkateswarlu Chakkilam, learned counsel for the respondent.
5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the court below failed to see that the nature and nomenclature of the Rental Agreement dtd. 1/9/2008 does not fit into the definition of the lease under Sec. 105 of Transfer of Property Act and as such, the observation of the court below while refusing to mark the same, that it requires registration is totally unjust and unsustainable. It is further contended that the court below failed see that even as per Amendment Act 4 of 99 to the Sec. 17(d) of the Registration Act, 1908, the lease deed is a compulsory registerable document if the period under the lease exceeds one year. It ought to have seen that no period is mentioned in the document in question. This has resulted in miscarriage of justice; hence the petitioner constrained to file this revision.
6. Whereas learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner had taken the lease of the vacant on lease and executed lease agreement on 1/9/2008, wherein the respondent pleaded about the giving of the vacant land on lease and the quantum of rent is Rs.1.00 and it was executed between the parties to the suit, which was suppressed by the respondent/ plaintiff. It is further contended that the respondent/ plaintiff had claimed about the arrears to an extent of Rs.1, 23, 000.00 as per notice dtd. 29/5/2013, had deliberately given up the suit of the arrears and the respondent/ plaintiff is stopped from claiming the arrears in future. The petitioner/ defendant had categorically mentioned about the details of the amount deposited in the bank and since the respondent/ plaintiff had refused to receive the admitted rents, the suit on the basis of default is not maintainable. Hence there are no valid reasons to allow the revision and same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Perused the record.
8. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record the decision of the learned Division Bench of this Court in "Kothapalli Sreeramulu and Co., Jogannapalem, rep., by Managing Partner and Others v. Krishna Gur and Khandasari Sugar, Jogannapalem", 2003(3) ALT 360 (D.B) wherein it was held as follows:
"32. In the instant case, the period of lease agreed between the parties under Ex.A-3 is for one cane crushing season of 1977-78. The total period of lease comes to nine months and five days. It is not a lease from year to year nor for a period exceeding one year. It is further specified that the lessee shall pay a rent of Rs.1, 20, 000.00 on or before 31/1/1978, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest at 18% p.a., from 1/2/1978 till the date of payment. Thus, it is a rent payable at one time. There was absolutely no indication to show that the lease period exceeds one year nor was there an
