1993 Supreme(All) 335

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
H. N. TILHARI
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Appellant
Versus
GANGA NARAIN KAPUR - Respondents
Civil Revision 117 Of 1992
Decided On : 07/09/1993

A lease for a fixed term of more than one year is required to be registered under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Headnote:

LANDLORD AND TENANT - SUIT FOR EVICTION - APPLICATION OF U.P. ACT NO. XIII OF 1972 - CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING - DATE OF COMPLETION - ASSESSMENT OF MUNICIPAL TAXES - LEASE DEED - REGISTRATION - FIXED TERM TENANCY - NOTICE OF TERMINATION - VALIDITY.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for a decree for recovery of rent and ejectment with the allegations to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the house in dispute, in a part of which Hindustan Commercial Bank had been in occupation as a tenant on monthly rental of Rs. 2,550.00. The plaintiff further alleged that the building in dispute has been a new construction and it was for the first time assessed to the municipal tax by Nagar Mahapalika w.e.f. 1/04/1979 and, as such, the plaintiff alleged that the building in dispute or to say that the accommodation in dispute was not subject to the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and that the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 did not apply thereto. The plaintiff further alleged that with the passage of time Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. i.e. defendant-Bank merged into the Punjab National Bank and the Punjab National Bank stepped into the shoes of Hindustan Commercial Bank, in other words, the old entity of Hindustan Commercial Bank merged into Punjab National Bank and thus Punjab National Bank the defendant has become, as well as occupies and continues to occupy the building in dispute, as a tenant of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further alleged that as plaintiff required the said building for his own user and so plaintiff gave a notice dated 2-12-87 to the defendant demanding the arrears of rent as well as the determining the tenancy on the expiry of the period of the notice of determination of lease and required the defendant to hand-over the vacant possession of the suit property, after vacating the same, to the plaintiff.

Finding of the Court:

The court below held that the evidence on record proves that the portion of the building in the tenancy or to say that the tenanted portion of the building was a new construction of 1979 which had further first time being assessed in 1979 and soon the date of the suit was filed, the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 did not apply to the accommodation in dispute. It is to be noted that suit was filed on 31-3-1987. The learned trial Court further held that as the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 did not apply to the building in dispute. It was open to the plaintiff to terminate the tenancy of the defendant and the evidence on record proves that the plaintiff has given the notice of termination of tenancy which was fully legal valid and, as such, the defendant tenancy had been validly determined.

Issues: 1. Whether the building in dispute was subject to the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972? 2. Whether the lease deed was required to be registered? 3. Whether the notice of termination of tenancy was valid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the building in dispute was not subject to the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as it was a new construction and was first assessed to municipal tax in 1979, which was after the completion of the construction. 2. The court held that the lease deed was required to be registered as it was a lease for a fixed term of more than one year. 3. The court held that the notice of termination of tenancy was valid as it was in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Final Decision: The revision was dismissed with costs throughout. The interim order of stay, if any, was vacated but defendant was granted six months time to handover the vacant possession of the accommodation in dispute to the plaintiff, provided the defendant furnishes an undertaking in writing in the form of affidavit to the effect that within this period of six months provided under the judgment and decree, defendant will hand over actual possession as well as he shall pay or deposit in advance the damages for use and occupation of the accommodation for this period Rs. 2,550.00 per month in advance.