The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered document cannot be relied upon as evidence of a lease for a fixed term of five years, and the tenancy is deemed to be a lease from month to month terminable by fifteen days notice.

1. The plaintiff who is the owner of the house “Riversdale”, Higgins Road, Ootcamund situated on a land with an extent of 23 cents, and with plinth area of 4000 sq. ft. has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 1,87,500/- by way of damages from the defendant-Indian Bank, a body Corporate which has been impleaded thrice as being represented by its Branch, Manager Ooty, the Regional Manager, Coimbatore and the Assistant General Manager (Premises Department) Madras. Damages claimed are for the “discontinuance of the tenancy in violation and contravention of the solemn covenant of the lease for a fixed period”. The plaintiff has also claimed interest on the said sum and costs of the suit.

2. The plaint averments are that the plaintiff was approached by the defendant for the lease of the plaintiffs building to the defendant for its use as ‘holiday home’ for its employees and that after discussions with the General Manager of the Bank, it was agreed that there will be a lease of the building to the defendant “for a certain period of five years with an option for renewal for two years with 10% increase in rent”. The amount to be paid each month was Rs. 7500/- out of which Rs. 3000/- was towards rent and Rs. 4500/- was towards amenities including for caretaker and maintenance.

3. The terms of the lease according to the plaintiff, were incorporated in the defendants sanction letter dated 9.6.1987 which was an interoffice memo, issued by the Head Office of the Premises Department to the Ooty office of the Bank. This document has been marked as Ex. P1 and constitutes the foundation of the plaintiffs case.

4. The plaintiff has further pleaded that the defendant, contrary to the commitment to remain in the plaintiffs premises as lessees for a fixed period of five years, prematurely terminated the tenancy by their notice dated 23.11.89, which has been marked as Ex. P10 whereby the defendants/bank intimated the plaintiff that it would be vacating the premises on 28.2.90. By the said letter, the plaintiff was also asked to adjust the sum of Rs. 22,500/- which had been paid by the defendants as advance at the time of taking the premises on lease, towards the rents payable for those three months.

5. The plaintiff having protested against the defendants termination of the lease, the defendants wrote to the plaintiff on 23.12.89, which letter has been marked as Ex. P12, informing the plaintiff that the plaintiff had failed to provide several amenities in breach of the obligations undertaken by the plaintiff at the time the sanction order was issued. By that letter, the plaintiff was also informed that though the execution of the lease deed had been contemplated, no such lease deed had been executed and the tenancy was therefore a monthly tenancy which could be terminated by either party by giving notice. The plaintiff replied to that letter denying the allegation that he had failed to provide amenities and asserting that the defendants would be liable to the plaintiff for the non-compliance with their sanction order dated 9.6.1987.

6. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on 5.2.1990 before the expiry of the period of the notice given by the defendant. It has been averred that the plaintiff was entitled to damages in a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- being the equivalent of the amounts payable under the sanction order at the rate of Rs. 7500/- for 28 months on the ground that “the defendants are bound in law to compensate the plaintiff, by way of damages the sum of money the plaintiff is likely to lose by way of lease amount from 28.2.1990 to 15.6.1992”. From the sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- so calculated, the plaintiff has stated, that the plaintiff is adjusting the advance deposit of Rs. 22,500/- which had been paid by the defendant and after such adjustment, the amount due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff was Rs. 1,87,500/- It is not in dispute that the defendant has paid to the plaintiff the agreed monthly payments till the date they vacat