Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2594
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
Kshetriya Sri Gandhi Ashram and Another - Revisionists
Versus
Ajay Kumar and Others – Opposite Parties
Civil Revision No. 561 of 2014 & 141 of 2007
Decided On : 27-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Revisionist : Tarun Verma, M.K.Gupta, Pankaj Agrawal
For the Opposite Party : Ajay Kumar Singh, A. Chaturvedi, Ashish Kumar Singh, Madhur Prakash, Sah O.P. Agarwal
Point of law: where a lease of a building for a period of 5 years was granted by an unregistered instrument and held that such an instrument can not create the lease on account of three-pronged statutory inhibitions i.e. section 107 of the Act 1882, section 17 (1) and section 49 of the Act 1908.
Headnote:
Registration Act, 1908 – Section 49, 17 – Provincial of Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 – Section 25 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 116 – Lease Issue – Evidence – Whether a lease for nine years by letter is a valid lease - Where a lease of a building for a period of 5 years was granted by an unregistered instrument and held that such an instrument can not create the lease on account of three-pronged statutory inhibitions i.e. section 107 of the Act 1882, section 17 (1) and section 49 of the Act 1908
Facts of the case: –
Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the letter/lease is a document inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, it was rightly held by the court below to be not admissible in evidence – Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, even if the lease deed is found to be not valid in law, yet the tenancy of the defendants-revisionists would be governed by the provisions and in that event all the terms and conditions of the original lease deed would apply to the parties and in that situation, the tenancy could be determined only on breach of the conditions of the registered lease deed by the defendants-tenants – Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs were entitled for damages @ Rs.32/-per square feet per month for an area of 2000 square feet, i.e. Rs.64,000/-per month or any other amount higher than the rent of Rs.18,515.
Finding of the court:
alleged lease of the disputed shop by letter for a period of 9 years is not admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 107 of the Act 1882 and Sections 17 and 49 of the Act, 1908 – Therefore, the Court below has not committed any error of law to hold that the aforesaid alleged lease deed/letter is not admissible in evidence, applying the principles laid down in case of Anthony (supra), the presumption would be that a lease not exceeding one year stood created by conduct of the parties – Therefore, the plaintiffs-landlords lawfully determined the lease by notice – Since the disputed shop was not vacated by the defendant-tenant/revisionist despite notice therefore, the plaintiffs-landlords filed SCC Suit which has been lawfully decreed by the impugned judgment – Therefore, the Court below has not committed any error of law in not accepting the claim for damages @ Rs. 32 per square feet per month – Thus, court do not find any manifest error of law in the impugned judgment with regard to quantum of damages –
Result: Revision Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
“If on expiry of lease period of a registered lease deed, a request for further lease for nine years on fresh terms and conditions is made by the tenant without registration of lease under Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, then what shall be the status of the tenant, the tenancy and his eviction? Is the main controversy involved in the present revision.”
1. Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the defendants/revisionists and Sri Madhur Prakash, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/opposite parties in Civil Revision No.561 of 2014, and, Sri Madhur Prakash, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-revisionists and Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the defendants/respondents in Civil Revision No.141 of 2007.
2. Both the aforesaid civil revisions have been filed under Section 25 of Provincial of Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1887') and arise from the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2007 in S.C.C. Suit No.04 of 2006 (Ajay Kumar and others. vs. Kshetriya Sri Gandhi Ashram and another). Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, both the revisions are being heard together.
3. On removal of defect in Civil Revision Defective No.4 of 2007, it has been numbered as Civil Revision No.561 of 2014 which has been filed by the defendants-tenants/revisionists challenging the impugned judgment, whereby the S.C.C. Suit No.04 of 2006 was decreed and the defendants-tenants/revisionists were directed to be evicted and were held liable to pay balance amount of rent from 01.01.2006 to 16.01.2006 and, thereafter, damages @ Rs.18,515/-per month from 17.01.2006 till actually vacating the disputed accommodation.
4. Civil Revision No.141 of 2007 has been filed by the plaintiffs-landlords/revisionists challenging the impugned judgment, whereby damages have been awarded to the tune of monthly rent of Rs.18,515/-as against the damages claimed @ 32 per square feet, i.e. Rs.64,000/-per month.
Facts of the Case:-
5. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3, namely Aditya Kumar and Anupam Kumar are the sons of plaintiff No.1 Ajay Kumar. They are co-owners and landlords of House No.C-21/4A-1, Maldahiya Varanasi. A registered lease deed dated 13.02.1981 of the disputed shop, was executed by the plaintiff No.1 Ajay Kumar for himself and on behalf of his two sons (other co-owners, namely Aditya Kumar and Anupan Kumar, who were minor at that point of time) in favour of the defendants/revisionists, namely Kshetriya Sri Gandhi Ashram (a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act having its office at Shalimar, Ghazipur, through its Secretary), whereby an area of 2000 square feet being part of aforesaid house No.C-21/4A-1, Maldahiya Varanasi, was let out by the plaintiff/respondents to the defendants/revisionists for a period of nine years at the monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-for the first three years, Rs.4,600/- for the second term of three years and Rs.5,290/-for the third term of three years. The term of the aforesaid registered lease deed expired on 12.02.1990.
6. Thereafter, on 06.03.1990 the defendants/revisionists sent a letter to the plaintiffs/respondents requesting for tenancy for further nine years on certain terms and conditions. On this letter, plaintiff No.1 for himself and on behalf of two minor sons (plaintiff Nos.2 and 3) gave their acceptance on 03.02.1990. Accordingly, the defendants/revisionists continued as a tenant of the disputed shop for a further period of 9 years ending in February, 1999.
7. The defendants/revisionists again wrote a letter dated 23.02.1999 to the plaintiff No.1 Sri Ajay Kumar requesting him to extend the tenancy of the disputed shop for a period of nine years on certain terms and conditions. This letter/offer was accepted only by the plaintiff No.1. As per this letter dated 23.02.1999, the defendants/revisionists offered to pay for first three years monthly rent @ Rs.4,000/-, monthly mainte
