High Court Of Delhi
AMAR CHAND TALWAR - Appellant
Versus
EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL FOR HANDI CRAFTS - Respondent
Interim Application 2546 of 1998
Decided On : 01/28/1999
{'KEYWORD': 'LANDLORD AND TENANT - LEASE - TERMINATION - NOTICE - WAIVER - ACCEPTANCE OF RENT - ADMISSIONS', 'SUBJECT': 'Validity of notice to terminate tenancy, waiver of notice by acceptance of rent, and effect of admissions in pleadings on a claim for eviction.', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Section 106 Transfer of Property Act', 'Section 107 Transfer of Property Act', 'Section 49 Registration Act', 'Section 17 Registration Act', 'Order 12, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code', 'Order 20, Rule 12, CPC']}
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the defendant from the leased premises and recovery of compensation for use and occupation. The defendant resisted the suit, claiming that the notice to terminate tenancy was invalid and the tenancy was renewed till a later date.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the lease agreement was inadmissible in evidence due to lack of registration and that the tenancy was deemed to be a month-to-month lease terminable by 15 days' notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court also held that the acceptance of rent by the plaintiffs after the institution of the suit did not amount to a waiver of the notice to quit.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice to terminate tenancy was valid. 2. Whether the acceptance of rent by the plaintiffs after the institution of the suit amounted to a waiver of the notice to quit. 3. Whether the defendant's tenancy was validly terminated.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A lease of immovable property for a period exceeding one year must be made by a registered instrument. In the absence of a registered instrument, it is deemed to be a month-to-month lease. 2. Mere acceptance of rent by the landlord does not amount to a waiver of notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiffs' application for judgment on admissions under Order 12, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, regarding the defendant's eviction from the suit premises. The court also ordered an inquiry under Order 20, Rule 12, CPC, to determine the amount of mesne profits.
( 1 ) THE plaintiffs have filed the application (IA No. 2546/ 98 under Order 12, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code for judgment on admissions.
( 2 ). To appreciate the merits of the controversy, it will be necessary to give brief narrative of the material facts. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for eviction of the defendant from the 2nd floor of the premises No. 6, Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (hereinafter called the suit premises ) and for recovery of Rs. 8,46,861. 00 as compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises from 1. 7. 1995 to September, 1995 besides future mesne profits @ Rs. one lac per month. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant took the suit premises on rent after executing an unregistered lease deed dated 3. 6. 1986 in favour of the plaintiffs. The rent last paid by the defendant was Rs. 25,094. 00 per month. Since the defendant s tenancy was from month-to-month, the same was terminated w. e. f. 2. 3. 1995 by the notice dated 7. 1. 1995. Despite service of the said notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises.
( 3 ). The defendant resisted the suit and in the written statement apart from raising other objections regarding maintainability of the suit for non-joinder of M/s. P. Talwar and Co. , it was asserted that the notice dated 7. 1. 1995 is invalid as the tenancy was not terminated by M/s. P. Talwar and Co. , one of the joint landlords and further the contract of tenancy stands renewed till 3. 6. 1998 and thus the plaintiffs suit for eviction is premature. It was also asserted that the amount of mestu profits claimed by the plaintiffs is highly excessive.
( 4 ). It is an admitted position that on 3. 6. 1986, the suit premises were leased out to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 16,500 for a period of three years vide unregistered lease deed dated 3. 6. 1986. According to the lease agreement, the lease was renewable for a further period of three years with the mutual consent of the parties by paying 15% increased rent. It is also undisputed that the rent last paid by the defendant was Rs. 25,094. 00 per month. Learned Counsel for the defendant contended that since the defendant has been paying increased rent to the plaintiffs, the contract of tenancy stands renewed till 3. 6. 1998 in accordance with the terms of the lease agreement dated 3. 6. 1986 and that being so, the notice dated 7. 1. 1995 is invalid and the present suit for eviction is premature. I am unable to accept the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act postulates that a lease of immovable 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. In the absence of registered instrument, it must be a monthly lease. In view of the said provisions, since the lease was for a period exceeding one year, it could only have been extended by a registered instrument executed by the plaintiffs and the defendant. In the absence of registered instrument, the lease shall be deemed to be "lease from month-to-month". The unregistered lease deed dated 3. 6. 1986 is clearly inadmissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act, except for the collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of possession of the defendant. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act is not applicable in the present case inasmuch as the terms of a lease are not a "collateral purpose" within its meaning. (Satish Chand v. Govardhan Das, AIR 1984 SC 143 ). Thus, the lease deed dated 3. 6. 1986 is inadmissible in evidence to prove the transaction of lease. It was also ineffectual to create a valid lease for a renewed term for want of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Consequently, I find and hold that in the instant case, the lease shall be deemed to be a lease from month-to-month, terminable, on the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.