SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Ker) 330

D.P.MOHAPATRA, R.C.LAHOTI, K.T.THOMAS
Anthony – Appellant
Versus
Ittoop – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

The provided legal document indicates that even in the absence of a registered deed or formal agreement, a lease can still be created through the conduct of the parties involved. It emphasizes that non-registration of a lease-deed does not negate the existence of a lease if the circumstances and actions of the parties demonstrate a lease relationship. Specifically, it states that a lease can be implied or established by the conduct of the parties, such as possession and payment of rent, and that such conduct can be sufficient to recognize a lease even without a formal, registered instrument (!) (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the document clarifies that the absence of a registered lease-deed does not prevent the assessment or collection of rent, nor does it necessarily mean that no lease exists. The key factor is whether the parties' actions and circumstances point to a lease relationship, which can be recognized independently of the formal registration requirement (!) (!) (!) .

In summary, the document does not state that rent cannot be assessed in the absence of a deed or agreement. Instead, it affirms that rent can be paid and received as part of a lease relationship, even if the formal deed is not registered, provided there is sufficient conduct to establish the lease.


Judgment :-

1. A dispute which constantly caused many litigations to prolong the past (whether a lease could be made by an unregistered instrument when such deed is compulsorily registerable) has once again been raised and that dispute has lengthened the longevity of this litigation through a chequered career. The successor of the party who was mainly responsible for not registering the instrument has now been

benefited of it as the impugned judgment gave a decree for eviction of the person who was admittedly inducted into possession of the building by the former. Though appellant claimed protection under the provisions of the Rent Control legislation the High Court discountenanced it on the premise that the document executed by the parties regarding the transaction is void under law. The simple question now is whether appellant can claim protection as a tenant under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)

Act, 1965 (for short the 'Rent Act').

2. Facts, mostly undisputed, are the following: The building which is the subject matter of this litigation is described as a shed which originally belonged to a family the senior member of which inducted the appellant in possession thereof as






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top