Honble SUJATA, J. — The appellant-trust had given shop premises No. 1930/1 situated in Mohalla Ghatia Azam Khan. Agra belonging to the appellant to the original respondent on lease at a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- sometime in 1954. The terms relating to the tenancy which were agreed upon between the parties were reduced to writing. This document is Ex. 12. It is, however, not registered. As the respondent did not pay any rent to the appellant since 1.1.1960 the appellant served a notice to quit dated 17.3.1961 on the respondent and filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court but was dismissed by the appellate court on the ground that the appellant was not a registered body and all the trustees of the trust had not joined in the suit. The appellant-trust thereafter got itself registered on 8.5.1963. The appellant served a notice to quit on the respondent which is dated 30th of May, 1963. The notice period is 30 days. As the respondent failed and neglected to comply with the notice the appellant filed a suit against respondent for ejectment & recovery of arrears of rent and other consequential reliefs. The suit was filed before the Munsifs Court at Agra. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Civil Judge, Agra.

(2). The only point which was raised by the respondent in appeal was that the notice dated 30.5.1963 terminating the tenancy of the respondent was invalid because the lease in favour of the respondent was a manufacturing lease; and six months notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was necessary in order to terminate the tenancy of the respondent. The appellate court rejected this contention and held that in view of the agreement which was entered into between the parties (Ex.12) there was an express term of the contract that a notice in writing of fifteen days only was necessary for the termination of tenancy.

(3). In second appeal however, before the High Court at Allahabad, a learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the terms of the lease which are recorded in Ex.12 cannot be relied upon in view of the provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence the term in the agreement relating to giving fifteen days notice of termination cannot be looked at. He held that as the lease was a manufacturing lease, six months notice was required under the deeming provision of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In its absence, the suit must fail. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the appellants suit for ejectment. Learned Single Judge, however, decreed the claim of the appellant for arrears of rent. The present appeal is from this judgment of the High Court.

(4). Under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act a lease of immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year can be made only by a registered instrument. Any lease of this kind would be void unless it is created by a registered instrument. All other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. All the courts below have held that there was a valid lease. The High Court has recorded that it was not the contention of the respondent that his lease was from year to year. The contention was that the lease was for a term exceeding one year and was, therefore, compulsorily registerable under the first part of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. This contention has been negatived by the High Court as also by both the courts below. The High Court has held that the lease was not for a term exceeding one year, and so was not compulsorily registerable under the first part of Section 107. It, however, held that since the lease was for a manufacturing purpose, six month notice to quit was required under Section 166. In its absence, termination was not valid.

(5). This reasoning is fallacious. It

Click Here to Read the rest of this document